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

[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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

But can they force him to do that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Ah the voters were to stupid to understand their vote as a basic argument against it. While true it is kind of a hard sell to people.

 

[IanS]

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

Well IIRC, Boris did say (only last week) that “not in a million years do I expect us to leave with no deal”. And AFAIK, Jeremy Hunt has said he also has no intention of leaving without a deal. In which case the whole argument about a No Deal exit seems to be a non-issue …

… except of course, as all sorts of people have been saying earlier, Boris has a history of saying things and then doing the opposite. So we will just have to see what he does attempt to do if he is elected as PM.

However, it's hard to believe that the present EU negotiators will have a more cordial and helpful attitude towards Boris than they did towards Mrs May. IOW – I think Boris is far more likely to just make enemies there (in the EU). So it seems unlikely that he will be offered some great new deal that MPs can readily agree in the Hoc ... unless of course there is going to be a new and very different set of EU leaders on the negotiating team (which, I think actually might be the case?).

Anyway, that surely means the more likely outcome will be that PM-Boris offers the HoC a deal almost identical to that of Mrs May, or else he offers his own version of a much “harder Brexit”, which on all past voting form will be strongly rejected by the majority of MPs.

The key thing will be whether he can stop opposition MPs from bringing a vote that asks MPs to rule out a No Deal (that's something they already did, actually … but they will probably be required to do it again with a new PM). How is PM Boris/Hunt going to stop MPs putting forward that vote? The Speaker (John Bercow) was already asked about that just a couple of weeks ago, and he apparently said he will allow that vote against a No Deal exit, and that he will block the PM if the PM attempts to stop that vote. … but who has the final authority in all of this, is probably a very complex and unknown/undecided legal question, i.e. if it's all going to get as totally unprecedented as that with the UK Prime Minister acting as a dictator.

 

[IanS]

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

OK, well we have knocked this particular issue about quite a lot now. And I've said many times what I think the legal & parliamentary position is. So I'll leave it at that now (if you, or others, disagree with me, then that's certainly your prerogative ).

 

[The Don]

Well IIRC, Boris did say (only last week) that “not in a million years do I expect us to leave with no deal”. And AFAIK, Jeremy Hunt has said he also has no intention of leaving without a deal. In which case the whole argument about a No Deal exit seems to be a non-issue …

… except of course, as all sorts of people have been saying earlier, Boris has a history of saying things and then doing the opposite. So we will just have to see what he does attempt to do if he is elected as PM..

Well that, and the fact that he is on record saying that he will absolutely let the UK leave with no-deal.

However, it's hard to believe that the present EU negotiators will have a more cordial and helpful attitude towards Boris than they did towards Mrs May. IOW – I think Boris is far more likely to just make enemies there (in the EU). So it seems unlikely that he will be offered some great new deal that MPs can readily agree in the Hoc ...

I agree.

unless of course there is going to be a new and very different set of EU leaders on the negotiating team (which, I think actually might be the case?).

Unless the UK's "red lines" change, there really isn't anything substantially different that the EU could offer unless they are prepared to completely undermine the EU to please the UK and Boris. IMO that won't happen regardless of who is involved in the negotiations

Anyway, that surely means the more likely outcome will be that PM-Boris offers the HoC a deal almost identical to that of Mrs May, or else he offers his own version of a much “harder Brexit”, which on all past voting form will be strongly rejected by the majority of MPs.

I think that if he does claim that he has a new deal, it will be functionally indistinguishable from the existing deal.

There is no "harder Brexit" he can offer unless it's no deal.

The key thing will be whether he can stop opposition MPs from brining a vote that asks MPs to rule out a No Deal (that's something they already did, actually … but they will probably be required to do it again with a new PM). How is PM Boris/Hunt going to stop MPs putting forward that vote? The Speaker (John Bercow) was already asked about that just a couple of weeks ago, and he apparently said he will allow that vote against a No Deal exit, and that he will block the PM if the PM attempts to stop that vote. … but who has the final authority in all of this, is probably a very complex and unknown/undecided legal question, i.e. if it's all going to get as totally unprecedented as that with the UK Prime Minister acting as a dictator.

As has now been pointed out many times, MPs can pass bills saying that a no-deal Brexit is unacceptable until they're blue in the face but unless they can also pass legislation saying what they want instead (be that no-Brexit, a second referendum or even a General Election) then we'll end up with no deal once the EU finally says no to an extension.

At the moment, Boris (or Jeremy) has nothing to fear from a successful "no no-deal" vote because Parliament seems unable to pass anything that will amount to an alternative to no-deal.

 

[IanS]

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

Actually I don't think the Leave voters did vote for any of that (highlight) as their main objective. The main reason why the majority of Brexit voters voted as they did, was to stop or reduce immigration.

Some Brexit voters may have other reasons as their main concern. But if you listen to virtually every BBC radio phone-in and every interview with Brexit voters in the UK over the last 3 years, it's obvious that immigration was the main issue.

 

[Darat]

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



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



...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.

Of course they should, it's good to see his change of mind on these matters and now he'll be fully behind the extension to Heathrow...

Really surprised he's not mentioned how he'll cancel the Heathrow extension.

 

[The Don]

OK, well we have knocked this particular issue about quite a lot now. And I've said many times what I think the legal & parliamentary position is. So I'll leave it at that now (if you, or others, disagree with me, then that's certainly your prerogative ).

The article you're using as the basis for your position was only looking at the legality or otherwise of the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament as a mechanism to force a no-deal Brexit. As it was a few pages ago, here's that link again:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019...rogue-parliament-to-deliver-a-no-deal-brexit/

It does not attempt to address the question of whether the UK could in any case crash out with a no-deal on 31 October if Parliament hasn't been able to agree on an alternative course of action regardless of how many "no no-deal" motions have been passed

 

[catsmate]

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

Too hot in summer, forty-plus is horrible.

 

[catsmate]

I laid out several very simple premises (facts actually).

No, actually you didn't. You made assertions that were shown to be nonsense.

You can't claim they're untrue without saying how they're untrue.

How about you support your claims with facts and evidence? For a change...

 

[Information Analyst]

But did you not read further where it says any Brit arriving after 29 March 2019 will be treated like any third world arrival?

As 29 March 2019 is long passed, the bit you quoted is about as much use as a one-legged arse kicker.

That's ironic, since you clearly haven't read it properly.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing you claim stuff, then absolutely refuse to accept you're wrong.

So I'm going to stop hearing it. Again.

 

[The Don]

But did you not read further where it says any Brit arriving after 29 March 2019 will be treated like any third world arrival?

As 29 March 2019 is long passed, the bit you quoted is about as much use as a one-legged arse kicker.

Errrrrrrm

as long as they are resident by March 29th or the UK's withdrawal date.

I've highlighted the important bit.....

Deal's still valid (until 31 October at least)

 

[Information Analyst]

Too hot in summer, forty-plus is horrible.

Yeah, the first time we were there, in the October, a waiter recommended avoiding July or August. The next time, Mrs Analyst booked without checking with me - end of July, beginning of August. "How hot can it be?!" she said. Stepping of the 'plane was like walking into an oven.

 

[Information Analyst]

Errrrrrrm

I've highlighted the important bit.....

Deal's still valid (until 31 October at least)

And as per the first cite:

"Muscat said that those UK citizens who come to Malta after 29 March will also be able to apply for a 10-year residence permit. “This is a privilege which we are going to give them.”

They will, however, be subject to different rules, similar to those which third-country nationals who apply to stay in Malta are subjected to. “But we still want to make it clear that we want to be open and hospitable to all UK citizens.”

Through the residence document, British citizens will have access to the employment market, and UK students studying in Malta will be able to keep doing so."

Operative word highlighted - not "the same." The same source also indicate the 1975 reciprocal healthcare agreement remains in place. There are also plenty of other indications that Malta is very keen to accommodate British visitors and residents as much as possible.

 

[IanS]

As has now been pointed out many times, MPs can pass bills saying that a no-deal Brexit is unacceptable until they're blue in the face but unless they can also pass legislation saying what they want instead (be that no-Brexit, a second referendum or even a General Election) then we'll end up with no deal once the EU finally says no to an extension.

At the moment, Boris (or Jeremy) has nothing to fear from a successful "no no-deal" vote because Parliament seems unable to pass anything that will amount to an alternative to no-deal.

OK, well I have just said above that I am not going to keep arguing this issue with you. So I won't do that.

But instead let me just ask you a question - if Boris as PM, is forced to go back to the EU to ask for another time extension, then do you say he will refuse any extension they might offer? Keep in mind here that we already had a legal test of that when Mrs May was actually forced to go back to the EU for the current 31st Oct. extension.

 

[The Don]

OK, well I have just said above that I am not going to keep arguing this issue with you. So I won't do that.

But instead let me just ask you a question - if Boris as PM, is forced to go back to the EU to ask for another time extension,

That's a decent-sized "if". The Conservative Party now seem completely committed to the 31 October date, the DUP would likely support them and there are always the Labour Party "awkward squad" - but for the sake of argument, let's assume that somehow Parliament manages to pass something to force him to ask for an extension.

then do you say he will refuse any extension they might offer?

Well, there's a second decently sized "if". The EU are already on record saying that they won't grant an extension for ***** and giggles, they'd need some degree of certainty that the UK was working towards some kind of conclusion - but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the EU offers an extension.

It depends on what the terms of the bill that had Boris go off to the EU were. Is he obliged to accept any extension ? Is he obliged to put the terms of any extension to parliament ? Is he empowered to refuse an extension ?

The other half of the decision are the terms that the EU applies to any extension. If they do what McHrozni suggests and makes any extension dependent just long enough to hold a second referendum then Boris could claim that, because Parliament has repeatedly voted against a second referendum, they have already spoken on the matter and he is entitled to refuse the extension out of hand.

Keep in mind here that we already had a legal test of that when Mrs May was actually forced to go back to the EU for the current 31st Oct. extension.

She was ? Please remind me of how she was forced.

 

[Wudang]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/

This also shows how volatile the situation was right until the end and how few prominent eurosceptics even then understood that a) the £350 million / NHS argument was necessary to win

for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No.

Dominic Cummings

 

[Vixen]

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!

Blimey.

 

[Vixen]

Errrrrrrm



I've highlighted the important bit.....

Deal's still valid (until 31 October at least)

I investigated this further. To be eligible for a residency permit in Malta in the first place you have to fulfil the following criteria:

EU/EEA/Swiss nationals and their family members may apply for permanent residence upon completing a continuous five-year period of legally living in Malta. Applicants must not have absented themselves from Malta for more than six months a year.

So ISTM that to get the bonus 10-year bonus residence as a no-deal UK citizen you need to have five years of living in the country first, so not much different from elsewhere in Europe. OK,so let's say you don't quite qualify, even if you have lived there five years, you then get treated as 'third country' and this is the frightening bit:

For an applicant to qualify for the Malta Residence and Visa Programme, prior to receiving the Residency Certificate, he/she has to meet the following qualifications and requirements:

Be at least 18 years of age
Has an annual income of not less than €100,000 arising outside of Malta, or has in his possession a capital of not less than €500,000
<snip long list of demands>

Pay the remaining contribution fee, amounting to €24,500, plus €5,000 per additional adult applicant, if applicable
Pay card fees amounting to €27.50 per person per year
Hold a qualifying property for a minimum of 5 years from the date of issuance of the Residency Certificate, either through the:
Purchase of property of either:
A minimum of €270,000 for properties situated in Gozo and the South of Malta, or
A minimum of €320,000 for properties situated in the rest of Malta
Rent of property of either:
A minimum of €10,000 per annum for properties situated in Gozo or the South of Malta, or
A minimum of €12,000 per annum for properties situated in the rest of Malta
Holds a qualifying investment of not less than €250,000 for a minimum of 5 years from the date of issuance of the Residency Certificate.

Somehow, Malta doesn't look so attractive after all.