The Brexit aftermath thread

[Noradin]

That is not correct. May's request to extend A50 until 30th June acknowledged that UK would have to hold elections if it was still a member when the parliament reconvened. If her deal was passed and the UK left the EU before this date of course there would no need for the UK to take part in the elections. I would suggest that you look up was requested before commenting further.

And that was where she was wrong.

Obviously, they have to hold elections if they are still a member when EP elections take place, not just before it reconvenes, otherwise they could withdraw article 50 after the elections took place without having participated.

[Slant]

For a long extension I expect the council to ask for some sort of guarantees/commitment that the UK gvt will abstain to vote on decisions like the budget, Multiannual financial framework and other policies aimed at shaping the future of the EU.

I don't think there are any provisions to make such a commitment legally binding. Considering that the UK is looking at a new PM once this is over, why should the new PM honour this agreement? We don't trust the UK at this point. I don't see anything like that happen, but I may be surprised.

- - - Updated - - -

It is ironic.

The fact is that is EU needs a relationship with Britain in some form or another, it (here EU is synonymous with Germany) has no interest to alienate a massive importer.

We know the UK will continue to import no matter what. That's just a partial reason, really.

[Mormolyce]

'Wont happen' is ironically the mantra in regards to anything and everything even remotely related to the Brexit spectacle.

Brexit and its various deadlines are essentially this old meme.

https://i.imgur.com/XDgHj8r.gifv

[Pann]

Could you provide something that confirms your claim? My starting point was that going beyond the EP election (the 23rd May) would require the U.K. to participate in the election, if they did not, any citizen could raise it at the EU courts and nullify the elections for all EU countries. Your idea that as long as you’re out before the EP was gathered in July everything would be fine is wrong, and seems to go by the same misunderstanding as May.

So please provide something to backup your claim.

Jesus wept. The date of June 30th was chosen as it was the last possible date before the end of old parliament's term on July 1st and new parliament's first session on July 2nd. You are now shifting the goal posts from your original claim that May was unaware that the UK would need to take part in EU elections.

Seeing as you are too lazy to find out about the subject before posting inaccurate nonsense...

"In the event of extension after June 30, the UK would certainly be in breach of its obligation to hold EP elections, unless a special exception was granted to it. This is because the Treaties refer to election for five-year terms.."

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/20...embership.html

'The text states that a withdrawing member country is legally bound to organize European Parliament elections between May 23 and May 26 this year. If the member country does not do so and the new Parliament holds its first session on July 2 with that country still in the bloc, the EU institutions "cease being able to operate in a secure legal context."'

https://www.politico.eu/article/docu...n-eu-election/

"UK participation in the EP elections if Article 50 extended beyond 1 July

A leaked Council of the EU document on 15 March indicated that an extension of the Article 50 period until 1 July would be possible without the UK participating in EP elections. No extension beyond this point would however be possible if the UK had not held EP elections. "

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-8496

It is possible that the UK not taking part in the EP elections would be open to legal challenge however there are no rules with regard to this situation thus there is no guarantee that it would be successful and your assertion that it would nullify elections in other member states is absolute nonsense.

The EU Commission is, rightly, concerned about such a challenge, even if it was found to be without merit, and most importantly they are worried that the UK will be unable to come to agreement and will request another extension after the elections have been held, although there are suggestions that would legally get around this issue, however the EU are, understandably, not keen on testing the legalities of such ideas hence their refusal of May's first extension request and May reassuring the Commission that the UK is making plans for holding EU elections if needed..

[LeGin Tufnel]

I have zero interest in the length of any extension and much greater interest in the preconditions of said extension.

It will say a lot if the EU grants an extension with few or no preconditions.

Following a meeting of the EU's General Affairs Council in Luxembourg, diplomats said "slightly more than a handful" of member states spoke in favour of a delay to 30 June and a majority were in favour of a longer extension.

BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming said no maximum end extension date was agreed, although December 2019 and March 2020 were mentioned.

Conditions of a delay were discussed including UK participation in May's European Parliament elections, no re-opening of the withdrawal agreement and how to guarantee the UK's pledge of "sincere co-operation" in ongoing EU business.

Those 'conditions' appear a little basic, don't they?

C'mon EU chaps. You need to insist on something more substantial than this, or there is literally no point in the exercise. It'll just be more party politics. All that will happen is that a) May will cling on and push the cliff edge further down the line b) May will be ousted & political chaos will ensue. A general election is not the solution.

[Crispin]

Jesus wept. The date of June 30th was chosen as it was the last possible date before the end of old parliament's term on July 1st and new parliament's first session on July 2nd. You are now shifting the goal posts from your original claim that May was unaware that the UK would need to take part in EU elections.

Seeing as you are too lazy to find out about the subject before posting inaccurate nonsense...

"In the event of extension after June 30, the UK would certainly be in breach of its obligation to hold EP elections, unless a special exception was granted to it. This is because the Treaties refer to election for five-year terms.."

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/20...embership.html

'The text states that a withdrawing member country is legally bound to organize European Parliament elections between May 23 and May 26 this year. If the member country does not do so and the new Parliament holds its first session on July 2 with that country still in the bloc, the EU institutions "cease being able to operate in a secure legal context."'

https://www.politico.eu/article/docu...n-eu-election/

"UK participation in the EP elections if Article 50 extended beyond 1 July

A leaked Council of the EU document on 15 March indicated that an extension of the Article 50 period until 1 July would be possible without the UK participating in EP elections. No extension beyond this point would however be possible if the UK had not held EP elections. "

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-8496

It is possible that the UK not taking part in the EP elections would be open to legal challenge however there are no rules with regard to this situation thus there is no guarantee that it would be successful and your assertion that it would nullify elections in other member states is absolute nonsense.

The EU Commission is, rightly, concerned about such a challenge, even if it was found to be without merit, and most importantly they are worried that the UK will be unable to come to agreement and will request another extension after the elections have been held, although there are suggestions that would legally get around this issue, however the EU are, understandably, not keen on testing the legalities of such ideas hence their refusal of May's first extension request and May reassuring the Commission that the UK is making plans for holding EU elections if needed..

Because it wouldnt be the first time a EU citizen made a case out of the inability to vote for EP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_v_United_Kingdom

There's an obvious reason why her end of June plea were rejected and moved to just before the 22nd of May. Obviously the concept is is just as lost on you as it was on her.

This further reinforces what I'm telling you, the elections on May is key. Regardless of when the new EP is seated.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKCN1RL2BD

And I'd love if you could point out where exactly goal posts were moved? My initial post was about how incompetent she is, when she didnt realise that a end of June extension would not be enough. Everything that has happened ever since has only reinforced that fact, yet here you are saying the opposite.

https://twitter.com/alexebarker/stat...32217978130433

Point 7 and 10

I'll give you a hand

It argues there is no way around the election obligation without treaty change — and that would take an age.

Skipping the EP election because "we're out before the assembly" was never going to fly what so ever.

[Crispin]

I have zero interest in the length of any extension and much greater interest in the preconditions of said extension.

It will say a lot if the EU grants an extension with few or no preconditions.

Following a meeting of the EU's General Affairs Council in Luxembourg, diplomats said "slightly more than a handful" of member states spoke in favour of a delay to 30 June and a majority were in favour of a longer extension.

BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming said no maximum end extension date was agreed, although December 2019 and March 2020 were mentioned.

Conditions of a delay were discussed including UK participation in May's European Parliament elections, no re-opening of the withdrawal agreement and how to guarantee the UK's pledge of "sincere co-operation" in ongoing EU business.

Those 'conditions' appear a little basic, don't they?

C'mon EU chaps. You need to insist on something more substantial than this, or there is literally no point in the exercise. It'll just be more party politics. All that will happen is that a) May will cling on and push the cliff edge further down the line b) May will be ousted & political chaos will ensue. A general election is not the solution.

The EU is hoping for a long extension, followed by another one and another; then you'll have a new referendum at some point and all is good. If the EU conditions were too strict, a hard brexit would probably be more likely.

[Kronik85]

I have zero interest in the length of any extension and much greater interest in the preconditions of said extension.

It will say a lot if the EU grants an extension with few or no preconditions.

Following a meeting of the EU's General Affairs Council in Luxembourg, diplomats said "slightly more than a handful" of member states spoke in favour of a delay to 30 June and a majority were in favour of a longer extension.

BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming said no maximum end extension date was agreed, although December 2019 and March 2020 were mentioned.

Conditions of a delay were discussed including UK participation in May's European Parliament elections, no re-opening of the withdrawal agreement and how to guarantee the UK's pledge of "sincere co-operation" in ongoing EU business.

Those 'conditions' appear a little basic, don't they?

C'mon EU chaps. You need to insist on something more substantial than this, or there is literally no point in the exercise. It'll just be more party politics. All that will happen is that a) May will cling on and push the cliff edge further down the line b) May will be ousted & political chaos will ensue. A general election is not the solution.

The sad state of UK politics. When you are literally begging the guys on the opposite side of the table to take a harder negotiating position because you can't trust your own team anymore.

[Pann]

Because it wouldnt be the first time a EU citizen made a case out of the inability to vote for EP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_v_United_Kingdom

There's an obvious reason why her end of June plea were rejected and moved to just before the 22nd of May. Obviously the concept is is just as lost on you as it was on her.

This further reinforces what I'm telling you, the elections on May is key. Regardless of when the new EP is seated.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKCN1RL2BD

And I'd love if you could point out where exactly goal posts were moved? My initial post was about how incompetent she is, when she didnt realise that a end of June extension would not be enough. Everything that has happened ever since has only reinforced that fact, yet here you are saying the opposite.

https://twitter.com/alexebarker/stat...32217978130433

Point 7 and 10

I'll give you a hand



Skipping the EP election because "we're out before the assembly" was never going to fly what so ever.

That case is completely different.

The reason is that the EU commission do not want to run the risk of the UK having to take part in the elections or not taking part and needing another extension past the date of the new term. However this was not your original claim and it is rather disingenuous of you to continue to alter your argument.

The commission have stated that the UK would have to agree to taking part which May has agreed to, which I pointed out to you.

You stated that she was incompetent because she, according to you, did not know that the UK would need to take part in the EP elections despite the fact that date requested had been chosen in order to avoid this and that she had agreed to plan for them when the EU rejected her request. Therefore, even without having knowledge of what had been reported in the UK (which you clearly don't) it is safe to say that she did indeed have knowledge that UK might need to participate in the upcoming elections.

And on the topic of moving the goalposts I notice that now you are saying that it is the EU that wants a long extension and not the UK as you erroneously claimed earlier. At least you've made some progress.

Really? Did you read those tweets?

Point 7 states that EU citizens must be represented in the EP, which will be the case for UK citizens until 1st July when the current term comes to an end, not that elections must be held.

Point 8 specifically states that no extension should be granted past July 1st without elections being held.

And point 10 is regarding an additional extension past the date of the original request and simply does not say what you believe it to.

It also states very clearly in the linked tweets between points 7 & 8 and points 9 & 10 "Such a termination clause would automatically end the UK’s membership if it fails to hold an election.

In other words even a long extension would cease on July 2 if the UK cant send MEPs to the new parl

For illustrative purposes, the doc includes draft language for the clause"

https://twitter.com/alexebarker/stat...32184075599873

- - - Updated - - -

The sad state of UK politics. When you are literally begging the guys on the opposite side of the table to take a harder negotiating position because you can't trust your own team anymore.

On the topic of trust; I can't remember where I read it but it was said that the EU trust May to stand by her word but they are extremely worried that someone like Johnson or Raab would replace her and they would tear up everything she had agreed.

[Voidwielder]

We know the UK will continue to import no matter what. That's just a partial reason, really.

And Germany has to export no matter what. It's economy is a pathology.

Exactly what I thought would happen, happened.

[LeGin Tufnel]

The sad state of UK politics. When you are literally begging the guys on the opposite side of the table to take a harder negotiating position because you can't trust your own team anymore.

Yes. It’s ridiculous, isn’t it.

We've gone through this entire charade with the EU doing its level best to not appear as interfering in UK sovereignty. This is your mess, can't expect the EU to bail you out and take the political damage What you are asking for is to embolden all sovereigntists in the EU by giving them a moment to point and shout about the EU not respecting states.

The EU is hoping for a long extension, followed by another one and another; then you'll have a new referendum at some point and all is good. If the EU conditions were too strict, a hard brexit would probably be more likely.

Hold on a sec, chaps, though. What about:

“Kick them out!”
“Disrupting investment!”
“Behaving like children!”

All of which has been heard in this thread. Which one is it?

I mean, rationally, I can’t believe I’m arguing this position. But there we have it.

[Demolitia]

Yes. It’s ridiculous, isn’t it.





Hold on a sec, chaps, though. What about:

“Kick them out!”
“Disrupting investment!”
“Behaving like children!”

All of which has been heard in this thread. Which one is it?

I mean, rationally, I can’t believe I’m arguing this position. But there we have it.

No deal would be terrible. Nobody wants that, realistically. Even if Macron has seemed to take a hardline, he won't be refusing an extension tomorrow if he's alone. If only to stand by the RoI.
Now they could refuse an extension and gamble it would lead to revoking article 50. I don't think you have all the statutory instruments in place, parliament doesn't want no deal and would likely force May to call it.
But that would come across as a major dick move, seen from your side of the pond, and backfire spectacularly in the future.
Yes we are tired of the UK's political bickering, the uncertainty is damaging, but no deal is an absolute shitstorm nobody in the EU wants to be responsible for.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been out of the loop for a few days.

Have the monkeys in suits within the u.k parliament figured something out yet? Did they get their extension?

Nope, but you can buy peanuts and popcorn at the reception and throw them at MPs from the balcony now

[LeGin Tufnel]

The EU can just let the UK leave with no deal if the UK so chooses. But it cannot afford to do exactly what it has been accused of to put pressure on the UK. It's up to the UK to choose how they want to leave.

Yep, sure. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

However, it remains that both on a micro level (e.g., this thread) and a political level too, "kick them out" is understandably very tempting. However, I appreciate it is an unlikely to come to pass. Bad luck @Acidbaron.

The irony being that if push really came to shove no extension might result in revoking A50, whereas a longer extension will simply result in more indecision, party politics, contraction of investment (both UK & EU), etc. etc.

Fucking nightmare. The whole thing's a complete fucking nightmare.

I ranted at my local Tory district councillor who appeared on my doorstep the other day campaigning for the local elections. He, literally, ran away. I was still talking at him as he was disappeared off down the drive.

[Demolitia]

Yep, sure. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

However, it remains that both on a micro level (e.g., this thread) and a political level too, "kick them out" is understandably very tempting. However, I appreciate it is an unlikely to come to pass. Bad luck @Acidbaron.

The irony being that if push really came to shove no extension might result in revoking A50, whereas a longer extension will simply result in more indecision, party politics, contraction of investment (both UK & EU), etc. etc.

Fucking nightmare. The whole thing's a complete fucking nightmare.

I ranted at my local Tory district councillor who appeared on my doorstep the other day campaigning for the local elections. He, literally, ran away. I was still talking at him as he was disappeared off down the drive.

I want the cctv footage of you throwing empty gin bottles at the poor guy as he's running down the drive

[Pann]

Yep, sure. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

However, it remains that both on a micro level (e.g., this thread) and a political level too, "kick them out" is understandably very tempting. However, I appreciate it is an unlikely to come to pass. Bad luck @Acidbaron.

The irony being that if push really came to shove no extension might result in revoking A50, whereas a longer extension will simply result in more indecision, party politics, contraction of investment (both UK & EU), etc. etc.

Fucking nightmare. The whole thing's a complete fucking nightmare.

I ranted at my local Tory district councillor who appeared on my doorstep the other day campaigning for the local elections. He, literally, ran away. I was still talking at him as he was disappeared off down the drive.

I honestly doubt that refusing an extension would result in A50 being revoked, MPs are still extremely wary about being seen to go against the will of the people and if anything it would likely push MPs to back May's deal. Hence May's desire for a short extension.

[LeGin Tufnel]

I want the cctv footage of you throwing empty gin bottles at the poor guy as he's running down the drive

Well, that's the thing isn't it. The whole of the UK's going completely barmy. It isn't just me.

Half of me just wants this all to finish. Now.

If that means taking May's deal with or without compromises on the CU than so be it. But it looks like that's not going to happen, so...

Compromise is being talked about a lot but who's actually willing to engage?

@dribbles. Bit late now, but would you compromise? May's Deal or a slight variant? Any other leavers? @Pann, I've never quite figured out exactly which side of the fence you might fall on. You voted remain but you don't think it'd be the end of the world if we left? So - soft Brexit?

Compromise is an easy concept to lecture children about regarding the importance of but in reality, as being demonstrated by our elders and betters, it's difficult to actually achieve.

[Mayhem]

And Germany has to export no matter what. It's economy is a pathology.

Exactly what I thought would happen, happened.

What exactly happened?

[Pann]

]Pann[/MENTION], I've never quite figured out exactly which side of the fence you might fall on. You voted remain but you don't think it'd be the end of the world if we left? So - soft Brexit?

I don't think leaving would be the end of the world but this does not mean that I think it is a desirable outcome. Of all the options remain is by far the best outcome however if we must leave then I think it should be on the terms of May's deal and I don't think that softening Brexit by remaining in the CU, as suggested by some MPs, is a particularly good option.

[LeGin Tufnel]

I don't think leaving would be the end of the world but this does not mean that I think it is a desirable outcome. Of all the options remain is by far the best outcome however if we must leave then I think it should be on the terms of May's deal and I don't think that softening Brexit by remaining in the CU, as suggested by some MPs, is a particularly good option.

OK, well, how about NI?

That's, basically, the crux of it.

[Crispin]

That case is completely different.

The reason is that the EU commission do not want to run the risk of the UK having to take part in the elections or not taking part and needing another extension past the date of the new term. However this was not your original claim and it is rather disingenuous of you to continue to alter your argument.

The commission have stated that the UK would have to agree to taking part which May has agreed to, which I pointed out to you.

You stated that she was incompetent because she, according to you, did not know that the UK would need to take part in the EP elections despite the fact that date requested had been chosen in order to avoid this and that she had agreed to plan for them when the EU rejected her request. Therefore, even without having knowledge of what had been reported in the UK (which you clearly don't) it is safe to say that she did indeed have knowledge that UK might need to participate in the upcoming elections.

And on the topic of moving the goalposts I notice that now you are saying that it is the EU that wants a long extension and not the UK as you erroneously claimed earlier. At least you've made some progress.

Really? Did you read those tweets?

Point 7 states that EU citizens must be represented in the EP, which will be the case for UK citizens until 1st July when the current term comes to an end, not that elections must be held.

Point 8 specifically states that no extension should be granted past July 1st without elections being held.

And point 10 is regarding an additional extension past the date of the original request and simply does not say what you believe it to.

It also states very clearly in the linked tweets between points 7 & 8 and points 9 & 10 "Such a termination clause would automatically end the UK’s membership if it fails to hold an election.

In other words even a long extension would cease on July 2 if the UK cant send MEPs to the new parl

For illustrative purposes, the doc includes draft language for the clause"

https://twitter.com/alexebarker/stat...32184075599873

- - - Updated - - -



On the topic of trust; I can't remember where I read it but it was said that the EU trust May to stand by her word but they are extremely worried that someone like Johnson or Raab would replace her and they would tear up everything she had agreed.

What i initially wrote was

When she first asked for an extension to 30th of June, she should have realised that the UK would need to hold EP elections in May, apparently she didn't; now that she finally does, she suggests some abomination of a sham election.

Which is still all there is to it.

Matthews Vs UK is an example that EU citizens can't be refused to vote for EU elections.


Not sure what you're getting so upset about tbh.

You also keep complaining about moving goal posts? what? My argument was never who wanted a long extension, but May's inability to realise that EP elections were a requirement for a late June extension. The fact that the UK now has to hold elections to get past May clearly proves that elections are indeed required.


But as I mentioned, I think (hope) this debate is based on a misunderstanding.