[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Kronik85]

I don't think there is any chance of the WA being renegotiated but I think there is a good chance that the political declaration could/will be altered hence the reports of member state officials meeting with Johnson's pals. Whether this will be enough to get the WA through remains to be seen.

But hasn't the EU always been up for making amendments to the PD and Parlimamet (BoJo and his cohorts most of all) have said that it isn't good enough and it's the Backstop in the WA that must go?

Now that BoJo is in power I can totally see that this repeated offer by the EU to put stuff in the PD might be redressed as something completely new, totally spiffing and exactly what the country needs...but it isn't and Parliament has ready rejected it, at least twice.

[Demolitia]

Thanks for that. I honestly don't know how accurate it is but it was an interesting read.

Thought so too. It only seems to say that no deal is not the default outcome. The comments in the blog clarify some stuff but there are still many questions. If it has any merit I'm surprised this hasn't popped up before.

[Slant]

Reason they're delaying a vote of no confidence seems to be to give Boris Johnson a chance to play his hand on Brexit in front of Conservative MPs that might not be all that enthusiastic about no-deal.

Ï wouldn't count such a vote happening and bringing Boris down out just yet.

What hand? He has no hand. There is no hand to be had. Take the deal, crash out or revoke A50. There is no nuances between those choices. It's dumbed down to the most simplistic minimum.

[Kronik85]

What hand? He has no hand. There is no hand to be had. Take the deal, crash out or revoke A50. There is no nuances between those choices. It's dumbed down to the most simplistic minimum.

The Conservatives TRAITORS! have to wait for BoJo to get in front of Parliament and in no uncertain terms tell it that he will be pursuing No Deal because the EU is made up of meanies who are bullying the poor defenceless super strong and definitely a world super power UK who refuse to renegotiate the thing the UK itself negotiated.

Until it's on record then a No Confidence vote will most likely fail. Lets not forget we have plenty of MPs like Mick Jaggers Illegitimate Rambling Love Child Rory Stewart who are very keen to point out how they don't agree with their party but then vote with the whip anyway.

[Mayhem]

Except it is. Johnson needs Parliament to approve the UK leaving the EU either through them signing off the WA (or other agreement) or by the House approving no-deal. He can try to run down the clock and leave without a deal however he has a wafer thin majority and roughly 50 MPs opposed to no-deal within his own party (some of whom say they are prepared to bring their own party down in order to avoid no-deal) and the House will legislate, as they have before, to stop the UK leaving without a deal.

What legislation are you talking about?

[Pann]

But hasn't the EU always been up for making amendments to the PD and Parlimamet (BoJo and his cohorts most of all) have said that it isn't good enough and it's the Backstop in the WA that must go?

Now that BoJo is in power I can totally see that this repeated offer by the EU to put stuff in the PD might be redressed as something completely new, totally spiffing and exactly what the country needs...but it isn't and Parliament has ready rejected it, at least twice.

There is a lot of posturing going on and it may well be that altering the PD might be enough to get the WA through.

Without knowing what might be changed in the PD it is impossible to say whether it would get through the House and don't forget there will many MPs who are now extremely worried that Johnson will go all out for no-deal and they might now be willing to back the WA.

What will be interesting over the next few weeks is trying to work out what is a blag and what Johnson is prepared to go through with.

[Mayhem]

I was reading this a bit earlier ...
https://legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac....legal-default/
I have no legal background, but if the person who wrote this article is right, it looks like the Commons hold all cards.
If by Halloween Parliament hasn't agreed to anything and there is no extension, the UK's invocation of article 50 would lapse and we're back to square one? Could the Brexit act lapse too or will it just become an added layer of legal nightmare?

Just one question here, would it actually matter if it was unconstitutional? Like, would that stop Brexit from happening or would it happen regardless and deemed unconstitutional by UK courts?

You know, because there are a bunch of other countries involved that don't care too much for British laws.

[Kronik85]

There is a lot of posturing going on and it may well be that altering the PD might be enough to get the WA through.

Without knowing what might be changed in the PD it is impossible to say whether it would get through the House and don't forget there will many MPs who are now extremely worried that Johnson will go all out for no-deal and they might now be willing to back the WA.

What will be interesting over the next few weeks is trying to work out what is a blag and what Johnson is prepared to go through with.

I suppose for this to pan out (no pun intended, but hey hey!) as such it's going to depend on which side gets spooked. Considering it's now near impossible for Parliament to be prorogued and BoJo has used his cabinet reshuffle to lose himself something like 50ish votes when his technical majority was something like 2 going into today, I don't think it's the Remainers who are going to be blinking now. If there's going to be panic it's going to be the ERG and they no longer have the numbers to actually push this through anymore. But that's just my take.

I've also spent the day wondering when the abominable Esther McVey would make it into the cabinet. Guess who's the new Housing Minister! Get fucked poor people, if you want a house you can pick yourselves up by your bootstraps and build one yourself.



He's also managed to get Evil Harry Potter JRM a position where he can continue to avoid collective responsibility but actually be in charge of stuff as Leader of the Commons.

Worst.
Timeline.

[dribbles]

Thought so too. It only seems to say that no deal is not the default outcome. The comments in the blog clarify some stuff but there are still many questions. If it has any merit I'm surprised this hasn't popped up before.

You are taking one obscure legal opinion as gospel? Here is the government position, who employ 100's of legal advisers and have the attorney general at their disposal.

The Speaker can’t guarantee that MPs can stop a no deal Brexit

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...no-deal-brexit

Parliament is preparing for a showdown on Brexit in the Autumn

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...-brexit-autumn

That is the current government position. All MP's, Labour Tory etc will refer to that website as the bible to parliamentary procedure, you would be advised to too if you do not wish to be misinformed.

[Pann]

I suppose for this to pan out (no pun intended, but hey hey!) as such it's going to depend on which side gets spooked. Considering it's now near impossible for Parliament to be prorogued and BoJo has used his cabinet reshuffle to lose himself something like 50ish votes when his technical majority was something like 2 going into today, I don't think it's the Remainers who are going to be blinking now. If there's going to be panic it's going to be the ERG and they no longer have the numbers to actually push this through anymore. But that's just my take.

I can certainly see the logic in your thinking. But I just don't know... there are so many things going on that it is so difficult to predict.

There is so much that could happen - I think I am just going to sit back an enjoy the (shit)show

[LeGin Tufnel]

I don't think there is any chance of the WA being renegotiated but I think there is a good chance that the political declaration could/will be altered hence the reports of member state officials meeting with Johnson's pals. Whether this will be enough to get the WA through remains to be seen.

Just been pestering the MMO-C what's for dinner thread.

What reports?

How could the political declaration be altered in a way that would be acceptable to either the EU or the new cabinet / those who voted for him?

The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each party.
"This balance must ensure the autonomy of the union's decision-making and be consistent with the union's principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the single market and the customs union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms.
"It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom."

Boris 'aint gonna square that circle.

[Pann]

What reports?

How could the political declaration be altered in a way that would be acceptable to either the EU or the new cabinet / those who voted for him?

The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each party.
"This balance must ensure the autonomy of the union's decision-making and be consistent with the union's principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the single market and the customs union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms.
"It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom."

Boris 'aint gonna square that circle.

The Sunday Times ran a piece that suggested that officials from certain EU member states had been meeting with Johnson's allies with a view as to what could be done to avoid no-deal.

That's the $64,000 question!

[AeneasBK]

That's the $64,000 question!

Just because I'm not sure I follow the analogy, isn't the 64k one the "freeby" where you don't lose anything if you get it wrong? IS that the gist of the comparison or did I miss the point?

[FluFF]

In fact I'd be doing all I could to keep one of my major customers, offering them cake and cherries, accommodating their wishes to the best of my ability. My business would be far weaker to just watch them walk out the door...

You had cake and cherries since day 1 of joining the EU... or did you forget about not joining Schengen, or not adopting the Euro ?
Since you didn't suffer any downsides from that and still had full access to the market etc etc I would call that cake and cherries.

It's like a little child throwing a tandrum and not wanting to clean it's room or something but you still take it out to McDonald's for dinner.
I would be sad to see the UK go without a No Deal, just cause it's bad for everyone but i'll be damned if i'm not bored by now by your constant wishes of being treated as a special child and wanting all the benefits but none of the rules, it's been going on since day of 1 of you guys joining the EU.


More ontopic : BoJo saying '' we can get a new deal, a better deal. '' and actually looking like he means it, never have I had such a good laugh on day 1 of seeing a new PM speak.

[Slant]

The Conservatives TRAITORS! have to wait for BoJo to get in front of Parliament and in no uncertain terms tell it that he will be pursuing No Deal because the EU is made up of meanies who are bullying the poor defenceless super strong and definitely a world super power UK who refuse to renegotiate the thing the UK itself negotiated.

Until it's on record then a No Confidence vote will most likely fail. Lets not forget we have plenty of MPs like Mick Jaggers Illegitimate Rambling Love Child Rory Stewart who are very keen to point out how they don't agree with their party but then vote with the whip anyway.

I mean, I'm with you... but a no conf doesn't matter. Time's running out. You think "Oh, it's almost August, we still got like three months!" but look at how good the UK is at using time to get stuff done. You don't have time for a no conf. I dare say you've already run out of time.

See, the way you guys describe it, I'm thinking you either crash out, that's pretty much accomplished. Has been since three years ago. If you want anything else, you need to no conf, do a GE, then call a bloody referendum and then get Parliament to agree on... something other than no deal.

I mean this in the most friendly way imaginable but... good luck. You're gonna need it even if all the stars align for you guys.

- - - Updated - - -

But hasn't the EU always been up for making amendments to the PD and Parlimamet (BoJo and his cohorts most of all) have said that it isn't good enough and it's the Backstop in the WA that must go?

Now that BoJo is in power I can totally see that this repeated offer by the EU to put stuff in the PD might be redressed as something completely new, totally spiffing and exactly what the country needs...but it isn't and Parliament has ready rejected it, at least twice.

Truth be told? The reason why the EU is so happy to amend the PD is because that's a whole truckload of horse manure. Nobody gives a flying fuck about the PD. That's a PR piece of paper to sell the news agencies once everything is ratified. The most legal relevance it has is "help guide interpretations of the WA" in case of disputes. It's what lawyers refer to when they say things like "oh, so when you said backstop, you really meant it because in the PD you also talked about it!"

It's not ever something that will be directly challenged in any court, because as a document itself, it has zero legal relevance.

The backstop will go when the UK solves the puzzle of "close borders while keeping borders open". That this will be literally never is pretty clear to anyone who actually thinks about this for more than two seconds. This is why Brexiteers are so adamant about rejecting the WA. Because essentially, the WA would put Brexit on hold indefinitely. And May was too happy to have that happen, because if nothing else, the British like being weird in their ways... you'd have accepted this and in 5 years "it would've always been this way" and please, never change it, because that's how it's done etc.

Nothing in the PD, no matter how much you rephrase it, will change any material thing that pisses Brexiteers off. Even discussing touching it is already a waste of time, if I'm absolutely blunt. The EU knows this. every politically interested person knows this. Brexiteers know this. And this is why the EU throws that into the ring every now and then and why Brexiteers routinely scoff at the idea.

[Demolitia]

Just one question here, would it actually matter if it was unconstitutional? Like, would that stop Brexit from happening or would it happen regardless and deemed unconstitutional by UK courts?

You know, because there are a bunch of other countries involved that don't care too much for British laws.

I honestly don't know. My understanding of the blog post is that Article 50 is not design to kick out a member state. It lays out procedures for a voluntary withdrawal.
What the author seems to imply is that even though other members states might not care, they can not push the UK into an unconstitutional situation. What the author says is the whole procedure would lapse (the whole article 50 shitshow would just be cancelled and the UK would have to invoke it and start over again).
The EU's (and so far the UK's) stance is that by the deadline, Treaties cease the apply, so no deal is the default.
I don't know who would win in court if there was a dispute, but the author seems to say there is a strong point to be made.

Again, I'm don't have a legal background and there is obscure stuff in this, but it's an interesting perspective.

[Mayhem]

I honestly don't know. My understanding of the blog post is that Article 50 is not design to kick out a member state. It lays out procedures for a voluntary withdrawal.
What the author seems to imply is that even though other members states might not care, they can not push the UK into an unconstitutional situation. What the author says is the whole procedure would lapse (the whole article 50 shitshow would just be cancelled and the UK would have to invoke it and start over again).
The EU's (and so far the UK's) stance is that by the deadline, Treaties cease the apply, so no deal is the default.
I don't know who would win in court if there was a dispute, but the author seems to say there is a strong point to be made.

Again, I'm don't have a legal background and there is obscure stuff in this, but it's an interesting perspective.

It is an interesting perspective, but ultimately it doesn't matter unless the courts can decide on the legality prior to 31st of October and give a ruling, no?

I mean, after 31st the damage is done and can't just be reversed.

[Nymrohd]

I honestly don't know. My understanding of the blog post is that Article 50 is not design to kick out a member state. It lays out procedures for a voluntary withdrawal.
What the author seems to imply is that even though other members states might not care, they can not push the UK into an unconstitutional situation. What the author says is the whole procedure would lapse (the whole article 50 shitshow would just be cancelled and the UK would have to invoke it and start over again).
The EU's (and so far the UK's) stance is that by the deadline, Treaties cease the apply, so no deal is the default.
I don't know who would win in court if there was a dispute, but the author seems to say there is a strong point to be made.

Again, I'm don't have a legal background and there is obscure stuff in this, but it's an interesting perspective.

Here is the thing. The formative treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. And that will happen on Oct 31st.
But much of the framework that forms the EU and creates the connections between EU states is not simply in the treaties. It is enshrined in national law. While the treaties will not apply to the UK, decades of legislation will. It would probably take weeks for the UK parliamentary system working at the minimum time required to begin stripping that legislation and much of it does not just need to be removed, it needs to be replaced. So in a completely disorderly No Deal you could be in a situation where the UK still is tied up by UK law to act for all purposes as an EU member with no actual reciprocity to the UK by the other members since those relations were covered by the treaties. And then there may be bilateral treaties between the UK and individual members that interact or are based on the EU treaties which would also be in limbo. The Withdrawal Agreement probably covers for this discontinuity but absent the WA the UK would need to substitute it for their own legislation.

So yes, the treaties cease to apply through Article 50. But what about EVERYTHING ELSE?

[Twdft]

I honestly don't know. My understanding of the blog post is that Article 50 is not design to kick out a member state. It lays out procedures for a voluntary withdrawal.
What the author seems to imply is that even though other members states might not care, they can not push the UK into an unconstitutional situation. What the author says is the whole procedure would lapse (the whole article 50 shitshow would just be cancelled and the UK would have to invoke it and start over again).
The EU's (and so far the UK's) stance is that by the deadline, Treaties cease the apply, so no deal is the default.
I don't know who would win in court if there was a dispute, but the author seems to say there is a strong point to be made.

Again, I'm don't have a legal background and there is obscure stuff in this, but it's an interesting perspective.

(IANAL either) For me that looked like circular logic. He is arguing article 50 notice is all good until 3 years later parliament says it's not good. What?

Negotiations after invoing article 50 wouldn't have started if either UK or EU side had doubts about its constitutional invoking.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Just because I'm not sure I follow the analogy, isn't the 64k one the "freeby" where you don't lose anything if you get it wrong? IS that the gist of the comparison or did I miss the point?

Wrong game show.... you're thinking of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? "$64,000 question" is a reference to an American game show from the 50s / 60s.

the phrase the $64,000 question remains as an idiom. Its definition is loose, but it usually means the crucial or essential question. Something referred to as the $64,000 question is usually an important issue whose outcome can’t be foreseen and on which much hinges.