[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Pann]

In May's case, the reason was she was covering her ass so she wouldn't get ousted, and in Cameron's it was fear of UKIP eroding the Tory vote. Cameron thought he could have his cake and eat it too - he'd propose a referendum, thereby stealing the majority of UKIP's platform, but nobody would be stupid enough to vote Leave so there'd be no consequences. He resigned in disgrace when that blew up in his face spectacularly.

And there's always been another option. The referendum isn't binding. Call off Brexit and take the hit to your popularity and career, clearly it's the right thing for the UK. But of course none of them would do that.

Or in Cameron's case, continue to allow the UKIP to split the conservative vote and accept a loss. UKIP would never have the numbers to push a referendum if both main parties refused to make it a policy.

If losing votes to UKIP was a threat to just the Tories then why did Miliband feel the need to include the pledges "Reform the EU so it "works for Britain" and "Allow no further transfer of powers to Brussels without a referendum" in his 2015 GE campaign? Had it been just a Tory issue he would have had no need to mention anything about the EU and could have simply hoped Labour would have won by virtue of UKIP eroding the Tory's share of the vote. Why did 52% of Labour consistencies vote to Leave if it was only the Tories losing votes to Eurosceptics? Why did Jeremy Corbyn's Labour continue this trend and pledge to take the UK out of the EU in 2017?

Leaving the EU has never been a simple left or right, Tory or Labour issue.

This option has never been available. The government was bound to carry out Brexit due to the fact that it had promised to fulfil the result of the referendum. If abandoning Brexit was truly an option then why do you think not one of 650 elected MPs have seriously suggested this in the last two years?

- - - Updated - - -

It is Maybots deal, and we know where that is headed on Tuesday, or no deal.

Tick tock.

No deal is not an option Parliament will simply not allow it.

It was said many moons ago "Brexit means Brexit" well May's deal or trying for the Norway option is Brexit.

[Noradin]

a threat to just the Tories

This right there is a strawman you came up with to divert the discussion.

Just because someone points out something is a problem for one party does not automatically mean they imply it cannot possibly be a problem for others, too.

[dribbles]

FYI chapter 9 subsection 1 of the act gives ministers powers to add, modify, repeal articles of the act in order to aid a withdrawal upto the changes which would otherwise require an act of parliament providing it doesnt contravene EU law.

Extending the exit period is actually comparitively easy to do as there is provision for modification in the act itself.

Don't forget the EU has a say in any extension too and have indicated only a second referendum or general election would see them minded to agree it. I can't see them extending just because parliament said we need another couple of years, or three, or ten, with no current concrete proposals or agreement on the table.

No deal is not an option Parliament will simply not allow it.

It was said many moons ago "Brexit means Brexit" well May's deal or trying for the Norway option is Brexit.

If only parliament were sovereign over the EU I might agree, but as a brexiteer rather than a remainer I accept the UK limitations over the EU empire and the time constraints held within. If only the remainers did too.

A WTO only deal gets more likely with every minute that passes, and at this point in time parliament can howl at the moon and nothing short of primary legislation, or a general election can change that.

They and the EU are out of time.

Instead of just parroting "no deal is not an option" explain the parliamentary process and timings by which you achieve anything else but?

You are beginning to sound like Theresa Mays Dalek just repeating over and over no deal is not an option, no deal is not an option...

[Lynarii]

No deal is not an option Parliament will simply not allow it.

It was said many moons ago "Brexit means Brexit" well May's deal or trying for the Norway option is Brexit.

You say that, but when it involves negotiations with other powers, they're not the only ones that have a say in it. The EU isn't going to accept the UK sitting in a permanent state of 'getting ready to leave'. If the UK parliament wants to 'not allow it', at some point they need to come together and decide which of their realistic options they will allow. And frankly, it doesn't really seem like they're capable of doing that.

In reality, the referendum as a whole was a shitshow. 50% + 1 is a terrible threshold for such an important decision, it's not a 'strong mandate for action'. Especially when the remain side is fairly clear, but the leave side was a collection of possibilities. Soft Brexit and hard Brexit proponents wanted very different things. There should have been a MUCH higher threshold to trigger definitive action, and a close result such as was achieved should have instead triggered the government to explore it's options and come back to the populous with several actual plans to vote between.

[Pann]

If only parliament were sovereign over the EU I might agree, but as a brexiteer rather than a remainer I accept the UK limitations over the EU empire and the time constraints held within. If only the remainers did too.

A WTO only deal gets more likely with every minute that passes, and at this point in time parliament can howl at the moon and nothing short of primary legislation, or a general election can change that.

They and the EU are out of time.

Instead of just parroting "no deal is not an option" explain the parliamentary process and timings by which you achieve anything else but?

You are beginning to sound like Theresa Mays Dalek just repeating over and over no deal is not an option, no deal is not an option...

I understand your anger but I'm the wrong person to be directing it at. You should be angry at those who sold you lies, the shysters that told everyone leaving the EU would be easy; that we'd all be richer; they need us more than we need them and then ran away when it looked like they'd be holding the can for their lies.

I have explained it already, Parliament will reject May's deal (this may lead to her resignation depending on the numbers), May or whoever will then return to the EU, there might be some minor concessions made but nothing substantial which will leave Parliament with the choice of accepting May's deal or cancelling Brexit, they will not vote for no deal. It's possible that they will not be able to break the deadlock in which case it's likely they will amend the withdrawal act, request an extension to A50 and then throw the question back to us plebs.

[Demolitia]

Is this old fart retarded or just senile?
Conservative peer Lord Howard of Rising says "leaving the EU is a return to democracy."

"It is possible the government believes a stream of negative stories will convince people that leaving the EU is not the right thing to do," he says. "The fundamental point is the people want to leave."

"There is no such thing as no deal. If nothing is agreed with the EU we have a world trade deal under world trade terms", Lord Howard says.

"If the UK is free from the shackles of the customs union it will thrive," he says, "with a world trade deal there is no crashing out, just cashing in".

edit: from the parliament debate

[Jastall]

Honestly, if it came out that she'd planned to sabotage Brexit by losing that GE I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

Ah, of course. The one person who actually stepped up to the plate to implement Brexit (as badly as she did it) was actually trying to sabotage it. That's the latest excuse I assume.

[Teleros]

The EU would still be bound by the RoI's red line. That would just not change.

Yes, I mean obviously there are red lines and all sorts of stuff that'll complicate things. Point is, the negotiations would've gone quite differently is all.

Sabotage Brexit? How?

By creating a deal that fails to deliver on Brexit.

Cameron: If you vote for Brexit you'll leave the customs union.
Brexiteers: Sure thing.
May: My deal gives us a customs union with the EU.

You know, stuff like that.

= = =

Moving on, I can see why Treasonous May wanted to keep the legal advice hidden:

https://order-order.com/2018/12/05/r...l-legal-advice
https://www.scribd.com/document/3949...Advice-In-Full

Just for starters, it treats Northern Ireland & Great Britain as separate entities with regards customs and such (so much for her red lines, eh?). The "temporary" agreement will also last indefinitely unless and until a superseding agreement is reached. Urgh.

The withrawal act is now the law having receieved royal assent, we leave March 2019 with or without a deal. That is binding, any amendment is not, the government can ignore it.

Primary legislation is required to change that, which only the government can introduce. And they won't.

Just to go into this in a bit more detail:

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (PDF)
European Communities Act 1972 (PDF)

So, on "exit day" (11pm, 29th March 2019), the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed. That's the Act of Parliament that binds the UK to the EU. I'm not sure if that alone suffices to get us out of the EU, but if nothing else it will mean lots of work for Parliament because without the 1972 Act, EU law doesn't have primacy over UK law, and doesn't get automatically applied to the UK. Every time the EU adds a new regulation or whatever, Parliament would have to meet to agree to implement it, at least until they un-repealed the 1972 Act :P .

Primary legislation is required to change that, which only the government can introduce. And they won't.

From what I've seen, "emergency legislation" can get things done in a day or two if needed, so it's theoretically possible for the government to rush through something in the remaining time. Whether they will or not is another matter - for all of Treasonous May's posturing that negotiations are over etc etc etc I've no doubt she'd do a U-turn in an instant if she felt the need for it. Even without emergency legislation (which I don't know the specifics for), I'm sure plenty in both Houses would be happy to rush a bill through quicker, instead of the usual 6+ months bills usually take.

FYI chapter 9 subsection 1 of the act gives ministers powers to add, modify, repeal articles of the act in order to aid a withdrawal upto the changes which would otherwise require an act of parliament providing it doesnt contravene EU law.

Extending the exit period is actually comparitively easy to do as there is provision for modification in the act itself.

Assuming the ECJ rules that the UK can unilaterally extend the negotiation period under Article 50... well here's the relevant bit of the 2018 Act:

A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day, subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

To little old me sitting here, that does not mean a minister can "by regulations" alter the exit day - rather, it means that they can do stuff to prepare for exit day, and even then only once Parliament has agreed to a withdrawal agreement. The usual "IANAL" disclaimer applies though, this is just my layman's reading of it.

No deal is not an option Parliament will simply not allow it.

It was said many moons ago "Brexit means Brexit" well May's deal or trying for the Norway option is Brexit.

Whilst Parliament may indeed chicken out of a WTO rules Brexit, Treasonous May's deal is not Brexit except in a very technical legal sense (ie, we are not an EU member). In terms of (a) leaving the customs union, (b) ending EU supremacy in law, and so on, it is not Brexit - or it's "Brexit in name only", if you will. A Norway-style option is not Brexit either, for the same reasons. I don't know how many Leave voters were voting to technically leave the EU but in practice remain in it, but I rather doubt it was very many :P .

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, of course. The one person who actually stepped up to the plate to implement Brexit (as badly as she did it) was actually trying to sabotage it. That's the latest excuse I assume.

Oh I assume she's been trying to sabotage Brexit for ages - I meant specifically by losing the GE in that post.

[Nigel Tufnel]

My understanding is that the EU is receptive to A50 being extended, but only by a matter of a couple of weeks. They want it over and done with before the European elections at the end of May.

Edit...
@Teleros - you keep referring to May as 'treasonous'. So, given that she has hasn't attempted to kill the Queen or overthrow the government (given that she is the head of government), you're implying she has betrayed her country. Is this not dangerous language to be using?

[Huehuecoyotl]

Cameron: If you vote for Brexit you'll leave the customs union.
Brexiteers: Sure thing.
May: My deal gives us a customs union with the EU.

You know, stuff like that.

But if it was Cameron saying it, that made it part of Project Fear. So obviously we should have known he was lying, because everything in Project Fear was a lie. So Cameron never intended for us to leave the Customs Union if Leave won, and so when we don't, we won't be doing anything wrong.

Wow, it's actually quite refreshing to use Brexiteer logic. It's amazing the things you can make yourself believe when you switch off your cognitive faculties.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I think logically, the EU should be willing to extend A50 as long as they see something productive in the UK that can lead to an outcome.
If e.g. the vote on the deal fails but there is no clear motion for a referendum, I see no reason to extend A50. Yes, even for a GE. Corbyn winning does not suddenly mean there are enough votes for the deal, it certainly does not mean the UK would suddenly want to remain, the EU doesn't have anything else to negotiate and the EU is ready for a no deal anyhow. Now, if there is a referendum and the people have an option to clarify what they want and thus force the parliament to commit to a single point, that would be worth of a larger extension, long enough to properly conduct the referendum. But I see no reason to grant an extension other than for a new referendum.

Yep, I would hope.

Googling, Guardian says:

Nevertheless, some diplomats speculate that it could be possible to engineer an extension until mid-summer, before the first sitting of the European parliament, which is usually in July. This reflects a desire to find a pragmatic answer if the UK needs more time, but it is a minority view, not backed up by formal legal opinion. The majority insist the UK would still need to take part in May’s elections, even if the extension expired in June or July.

[Demolitia]

Wow, it's actually quite refreshing to use Brexiteer logic. It's amazing the things you can make yourself believe when you switch off your cognitive faculties.

While this is mildly amusing on this forum, I'm frightened to see the same arguments going on at parliamentary level.
This whole thing really is a disgrace.

[Pann]

Whilst Parliament may indeed chicken out of a WTO rules Brexit, Treasonous May's deal is not Brexit except in a very technical legal sense (ie, we are not an EU member). In terms of (a) leaving the customs union, (b) ending EU supremacy in law, and so on, it is not Brexit - or it's "Brexit in name only", if you will. A Norway-style option is not Brexit either, for the same reasons. I don't know how many Leave voters were voting to technically leave the EU but in practice remain in it, but I rather doubt it was very many :P

It has nothing to do with chickening out. When you have a result that was as close the referendum Brexit was always going to be a compromise and when you throw in added complications such as the GFA you get... well... you get May's deal.

Under May's deal we will no longer be an EU member state, we will have no MEPs, we will not be part of the SM or CU, FOM will end and the ECJ will no longer have supremacy over UK laws. This is Brexit. The fact that this Brexit is not your vision of Brexit is unfortunate but that is is the risk when you vote for something that is not defined.

- - - Updated - - -

By creating a deal that fails to deliver on Brexit.

Cameron: If you vote for Brexit you'll leave the customs union.
Brexiteers: Sure thing.
May: My deal gives us a customs union with the EU.

You know, stuff like that.

The current proposal is a stepping stone. The starting point of our future relationship.

[Huehuecoyotl]

It has nothing to do with chickening out. When you have a result that was as close the referendum Brexit was always going to be a compromise and when you throw in added complications such as the GFA you get... well... you get May's deal.

Under May's deal we will no longer be an EU member state, we will have no MEPs, we will not be part of the SM or CU, FOM will end and the ECJ will no longer have supremacy over UK laws. This is Brexit. The fact that this Brexit is not your vision of Brexit is unfortunate but that is is the risk when you vote for something that is not defined.

And that in a nutshell is why the original Brexit vote was so flawed. By not defining one side of the vote, the Leave side, it left a vacuum that everyone voting that way could fill with their own vision of what Brexit meant. So the Lexit crowd saw it as an escape from the neo-liberal EU. The racist fringe saw a way of clearing the non-whites from the country. The left-behind saw it as a way of giving a bloody nose to the government. There is NO form of Brexit that will make all of them happy. I'm not even sure there is any form that would make a majority of that 26% of the country happy. Anything that happens now, a large chunk of people will be unhappy.

Personally, I would prefer if we make some people unhappy and don't damage the country. But that's just me.

[Nigel Tufnel]

And that in a nutshell is why the original Brexit vote was so flawed. By not defining one side of the vote, the Leave side, it left a vacuum that everyone voting that way could fill with their own vision of what Brexit meant. So the Lexit crowd saw it as an escape from the neo-liberal EU. The racist fringe saw a way of clearing the non-whites from the country. The left-behind saw it as a way of giving a bloody nose to the government. There is NO form of Brexit that will make all of them happy. I'm not even sure there is any form that would make a majority of that 26% of the country happy. Anything that happens now, a large chunk of people will be unhappy.

Personally, I would prefer if we make some people unhappy and don't damage the country. But that's just me.

Yep, very well put.

[Jastall]

Oh I assume she's been trying to sabotage Brexit for ages - I meant specifically by losing the GE in that post.

Lot less of a "sabotage" than the parade of pro-Brexit politicians who left the ship when it started sinking because reality didn't bend to their whims, Farrage being the most worthy of contempt but hardly the only one.

I can't say I like May or think she handled this well, but at least she stepped up and saw the whole shebang to the end come what may (teehee), unlike a lot of others.

[dribbles]

I understand your anger but I'm the wrong person to be directing it at. You should be angry at those who sold you lies, the shysters that told everyone leaving the EU would be easy; that we'd all be richer; they need us more than we need them and then ran away when it looked like they'd be holding the can for their lies.

I have explained it already, Parliament will reject May's deal (this may lead to her resignation depending on the numbers), May or whoever will then return to the EU, there might be some minor concessions made but nothing substantial which will leave Parliament with the choice of accepting May's deal or cancelling Brexit, they will not vote for no deal. It's possible that they will not be able to break the deadlock in which case it's likely they will amend the withdrawal act, request an extension to A50 and then throw the question back to us plebs.

I am far from angry, every day that goes by towards that sweet no deal I get a little happier...

Nobody has to vote for no deal, that is in the bank, all that has to happen is the clock ticks down until Brexit day. No deal is the default, parliament way back when set in stone with a majority that with no agreement we leave in March 2019. They already voted for that.

All that does have to happen is that every deal Theresa May puts to parliament is defeated. Do you see her coming up with a coherent plan in the next few weeks?

No deal is strong and stable, unless you think Labour are happy to put party politics aside and support and prop up a failing Conservative PM. Not even their bedfellows the DUP are willing to do that anymore....

[Demolitia]

No deal is strong and stable

No deal might be strong in decades, maybe , but stable is certainly not one of its qualities

[Pann]

I am far from angry, every day that goes by towards that sweet no deal I get a little happier...

Nobody has to vote for no deal, that is in the bank, all that has to happen is the clock ticks down until Brexit day. No deal is the default, parliament way back when set in stone with a majority that with no agreement we leave in March 2019. They already voted for that.

All that does have to happen is that every deal Theresa May puts to parliament is defeated. Do you see her coming up with a coherent plan in the next few weeks?

No deal is strong and stable, unless you think Labour are happy to put party politics aside and support and prop up a failing Conservative PM. Not even their bedfellows the DUP are willing to do that anymore....

It is not in the bank at all, the government does not want no-deal (it never has) and Grieve's amendment last night pretty much put the last nail in no-deal's coffin.

If May cannot get her deal through then imo it will be put to the public vote and I am almost certain that no-deal will not be option on the voting slip.

[Teleros]

How would they be different? Does BoJo have a mandate to abandon the GFA that no one else knows off?

My point was rather broader than just focusing on the Good Friday Agreement though. Now, perhaps it'd mean altering that agreement or even (!) abandoning it, but again, I think the overall negotiations would have ended up different. That's all.

@Teleros - you keep referring to May as 'treasonous'. So, given that she has hasn't attempted to kill the Queen or overthrow the government (given that she is the head of government), you're implying she has betrayed her country. Is this not dangerous language to be using?

1. I think she has betrayed the country with her deal. It's so bad she's actually managed to unite Remoaners and Brexiteers against it. If Treasonous May wants to take me to court for defamation she's welcome to.
2. Ever heard of rhetoric?

But if it was Cameron saying it, that made it part of Project Fear. So obviously we should have known he was lying, because everything in Project Fear was a lie.

Was it? Oh, okay :P .

Under May's deal we will no longer be an EU member state, we will have no MEPs, we will not be part of the SM or CU, FOM will end and the ECJ will no longer have supremacy over UK laws. This is Brexit.

1. No longer an EU member state or with MPs - correct.
2. Not be part of the Single Market or customs union - correct. We will however be part of a customs union with the EU.
3. ECJ supremacy - no, the ECJ will still have an awful lot of power, given the transition period can be up until 2100 AD.

The current proposal is a stepping stone. The starting point of our future relationship.

Which may last indefinitely, per Geoffrey Cox MP's legal advice.