The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Davkaus]

8 hours ago, brommy said:

The tweet implied outrageousness that the end result would be unknown with a short time remaining. Neither party would have accepted the unacceptable or deeply undesirable earlier in the timetable so unless the situation had been resolved amicably some time ago, it was obviously going to the wire. No surprise to me, as detailed.

You probably ought to be in the cabinet then, because no other **** had a clue.

[Davkaus]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

its also clear (in my world) that we’re not leaving on 29 March. No one wants no deal, so that’s not going to happen. The U.K. won’t have all the laws in place to leave on 29 March and so it’ll get either cancelled or delayed. I know May is trying to jemmy her deal through, I know no deal is the default, but neither of them are going to happen. Her deal was rejected by the biggest parliamentary defeat in history and no deal is suicide.

It's been mentioned several times that the elections are at the end of May and things need to be settled by then, but it's hard to see what another 2 months will do with our current PM. She'll find countless ways to piss that 2 months in to the wind. 

If we were on the cusp of a deal that parliament would accept, I'd probably agree with you, but May has just wasted the last 2 years, and it's hard to see why the  EU would want to have their time wasted any further.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Davkaus

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

It's been mentioned several times that the elections are at the end of May and things need to be settled by then, but it's hard to see what another 2 months will do with our current PM. She'll find countless ways to piss that 2 months in to the wind. 

.... May has just wasted the last 2 years, and it's hard to see why the  EU would want to have their time wasted any further.

I'm (in my world) certain it's going to get delayed and for a lot longer than 2 months. Then once it's been delayed, May gets potted. She's basically toast already and could be gone at any time.

I think the Euro elections is a problem, but it'll get fudged - either the UK won't put forward any candidates, or (much less likely) it'll get delayed also.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I'm (in my world) certain it's going to get delayed and for a lot longer than 2 months. Then once it's been delayed, May gets potted. She's basically toast already and could be gone at any time.

I think the Euro elections is a problem, but it'll get fudged - either the UK won't put forward any candidates, or (much less likely) it'll get delayed also.

This is where I am too.

I openly admit I'm not as clued up as a lot of you so I don't even know if it's possible. 

My gut feeling used to be that it just wouldn't happen.
Now my gut feeling is it might happen, but it won't be on March 29th.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

It's been mentioned several times that the elections are at the end of May and things need to be settled by then, but it's hard to see what another 2 months will do with our current PM. She'll find countless ways to piss that 2 months in to the wind. 

If we were on the cusp of a deal that parliament would accept, I'd probably agree with you, but May has just wasted the last 2 years, and it's hard to see why the  EU would want to have their time wasted any further.

I suspect we'll be holding elections here as the EU seem to be hinting that the only extension they'll agree too is a 21 month one. They know 2 months isn't going to solve it.

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

I think the Euro elections is a problem, but it'll get fudged - either the UK won't put forward any candidates, or (much less likely) it'll get delayed also.

 

Fairly sure the EU said previously that if any extension goes past May, then we'll have to hold elections.

[Chindie]

There's concern that if the UK were to remain a member beyond the Euro elections but not have European Parliamentary representation, there would potentially be legal challenges to any legislation the EU looked to implement in the meantime. The Parliament itself disagrees with this, but other parts of the organisation believe the UK would have to be represented.

[blandy]

Just now, bickster said:

Fairly sure the EU said previously that if any extension goes past May, then we'll have to hold elections.

Sure.  - Obviously If we haven't left, then we're still part of the EU.

But also in my world, we could only take part in the elections if either we're definitely going to stay in for another whole EU parliament election cycle, or if there's a fudge - for example if we don't take part, but it gets agreed that if we decide to remain, we could then hold elections for EU MEPs (this would be a fudge because it would change the total number of MEPs upwards), or alternatively our current MEPs get granted "extensions" or as you imply if we do take part, but our MEPs have to resign when we leave (leaving the total number of MEPs below what it should be for an extended period... and thus unbalanced influence for the larger nations). I'll go with a guess at don't take part...and the potential to hold UK only EP elections down the line.

Is suppose the thing to weigh up is the uproar if we're still a member, but unrepresented v the uproar if we take part "but we voted to leave" v "if we "change our minds" and decide to remain, we then hold EP elections. Maybe the EU could get tough - if you haven't left you must have elections - it's the law and that would clinch it?. 

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

I suspect we'll be holding elections here as the EU seem to be hinting that the only extension they'll agree too is a 21 month one. They know 2 months isn't going to solve it.

There's also the thought that, frankly, May has kicked the can for 2 months already. Giving her 2 more to waste isn't going to do anything.

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure.  - Obviously If we haven't left, then we're still part of the EU.

But also in my world, we could only take part in the elections if either we're definitely going to stay in for another whole EU parliament election cycle, or if there's a fudge - for example if we don't take part, but it gets agreed that if we decide to remain, we could then hold elections for EU MEPs (this would be a fudge because it would change the total number of MEPs upwards), or alternatively our current MEPs get granted "extensions" or as you imply if we do take part, but our MEPs have to resign when we leave (leaving the total number of MEPs below what it should be for an extended period... and thus unbalanced influence for the larger nations). I'll go with a guess at don't take part...and the potential to hold UK only EP elections down the line.

It's not just about us though - for the EU, if we haven't carried out the democratic requirements of membership (i.e holding elections for representation) then the European Parliament isn't properly constituted. 

And any decisions taken by that Parliament are open to legal challenge. 

So tedious and technical, but not really something that can be fudged.

[blandy]

29 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It's not just about us though - for the EU, if we haven't carried out the democratic requirements of membership (i.e holding elections for representation) then the European Parliament isn't properly constituted. 

And any decisions taken by that Parliament are open to legal challenge. 

So tedious and technical, but not really something that can be fudged.

Sure - that's why I said " Maybe the EU could get tough - if you haven't left you must have elections - it's the law and that would clinch it?."  The fudge could come about via, for example, an extension agreement which states that we are in some kind of intermim period of intending to leave by such and such a date and therefore will not be taking part in the elections. If that text were made a legal text, and it would be, then the parliament could/would be "properly" constituted.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Sure - that's why I said " Maybe the EU could get tough - if you haven't left you must have elections - it's the law and that would clinch it?."  The fudge could come about via, for example, an extension agreement which states that we are in some kind of intermim period of intending to leave by such and such a date and therefore will not be taking part in the elections. If that text were made a legal text, and it would be, then the parliament could/would be "properly" constituted.

I don't see why they would though. It's hassle for the EU either way. Fudging it helps the UK because it doesn't have to have an awkward conversation with its electorate, but it's the same ball-ache for them either way.

If your scenario above happens, the first thing you get is a legal case brought on behalf of UK citizens, that they have lost their elected representation - which is contrary to the treaties. And a treaty change isn't the sort of thing done on a whim to make the UK Government's life a bit easier. 

[snowychap]

From back in October:

Quote

The European Parliament election and Brexit delay – not a major headache

Brexit negotiations are heading towards their hardest phase. With less than 6 months to go, with no solution to the Irish Border problem in sight, and with Theresa May in a precarious position within her own party, the chances of actually getting a Withdrawal Agreement that is acceptable to both sides look slim. Meanwhile both sides know that No Deal is a catastrophe. More so for the UK than for the EU, but painful nevertheless for the EU side too (and especially Ireland, France, Belgium and Netherlands).

One way out of this impasse would be an extension to the negotiation period foreseen in Article 50. I have long argued that this is a better way forward than pushing all the major decisions into a transition period. Extending Article 50 requires the unanimous agreement of the EU-27 – a high hurdle – but that would be possible to achieve if political turbulence in the UK (the ousting of May for example), or the impending danger of a No Deal, necessitated it.

Yet whenever I raise the issue of extending Article 50, I am hit with a question in return: what about the European Parliament elections, due 24-27 May 2019?

A very short term Article 50 extension – a matter of weeks beyond 29 March 2019, but Brexit still happening on a date before the European Parliament elections starting 24 May – might just about work. This could be used to deal with a last minute hiccup.

But an election where the UK is a Member State of the EU the day causes all sorts of headaches – German law for example says anyone voting in, or running in, the European election must be a EU citizen on the election day. If Brexit were to legally happen any time after the EP elections, even a day after, Brits resident in Germany would have the right to vote and to run for the EP. And were Brits in Germany to have this right, what about Brits in the UK…?

My conclusion is hence that any Article 50 extension would have to be either a couple of weeks, or – more likely – for months and months, well beyond the European elections. If you are going to extend past the EP elections, then better give yourselves some proper time for negotiations, not just make another negotiation cliff edge sometime in autumn 2019.

But that means organising a European Election in the UK.

This is not as hard as you might think.

The UK has a history of calling snap elections. The 2017 General Election in the UK was all organised within 7 weeks and 2 days. 7 weeks and 2 days ahead of 24 May 2019… is 3 April. After the timetabled Brexit day. The UK’s Electoral Commission has already also set aside a budget to organise such a vote, much to the chagrin of some Brexiters. So no problem UK side. Likewise parties had to scramble for candidates in 2017 – so would also be the case here. But finding people ready to run (not least from among the ranks of Remain people, and among EU-sceptics) would not be hard.

Likewise on the EU side the administrative hurdles are not too onerous. The rules that reallocated the UK’s MEPs to other countries make it explicit that these changes only happen if and when the UK leaves the EU. Page 7 of this Decision (PDF), the important part here:

We also have precedent for changing the composition of the European Parliament during a parliamentary term.

Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon (that enlarged the European Parliament to 751 MEPs) was delayed due to the second referendum in Ireland. That meant that the extra 18 MEPs were only able to take up their seats on 1 December 2011, 2 years and 7 months after the 2009 European Parliament elections. This article explained how it all worked out.

The same could work for UK MEPs in the European Parliament post-2019. Elect the 73 MEPs for the UK, and those MEPs would then sit until the date that the UK leaves the EU. And then when the UK leaves and the UK MEPs leave the parliament, the extra MEPs from other Member States (Netherlands gets 3 more, Ireland 2 more etc. – all explained here) would then step in.

I have also heard the argument made that such an election in the UK would result in a whole slew of EU-sceptics and the populist right entering the European Parliament from the UK, and hence such an election should not happen.

This argument I find ridiculous.

If the British people are still EU Citizens on the day of the European Elections it is obvious that they should have the right to vote in the European Election, and it is the choice of those voting who they choose to represent them (this is what happened in 2014). During the Article 50 period the UK is still a Member State of the European Union, and not holding a European Election in a Member State of the European Union would be a democratic scandal.

The same would then happen in the European Commission – the UK would get a Commissioner up until the day that it leaves the European Union. The successor to Julian King would be chosen in the autumn of 2019 if the UK is still in the EU at this point.

So, to conclude: it would no doubt be an unusual election in the UK in May 2019. But the organisational hurdles in the way of such an election are relatively easy to surmount (and they are nothing in comparison to those a No Deal Brexit throws up), and if the UK is still in the EU on 24th May 2019 then not organising an election there would be unacceptable from a democratic standpoint.

[UPDATE 22.10.2018, 1430]
This posted prompted an interesting follow up debate on Twitter, with this being the most interesting part. A derogation under Article 22 from holding an EP election in the UK might be proportionate if Brexit were certain to happen, but had not happened, on the day of the EP elections. I think the conclusion of this would be that, if necessary, some technicalities could be solved still after election day, but these would need to be relatively minor. With this caveat I think the essence of this blog post nevertheless still stands.

[chrisp65]

Can you imagine the fall out of announcing we're staying in but not having EU elections! We'll just keep paying in but not be represented and just go along with any new laws.

Almost worth doing it just to see the result. 

I'm guessing that was a suggestion for trolling porpoises only?

[bickster]

Corbyn to back 2nd Referendum amendment

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Corbyn to back 2nd Referendum amendment

He's creeping towards a sane direction then and following their party policy. Good. Seeing the reality is believing, mind. I wouldn't put it past him to arse it up.

[ml1dch]

Creeping is the right word. By all accounts they want a referendum on Labour's Brexit "policy".

Still, it's not much of a leap from there to a vote on May's deal. Baby steps.

[tonyh29]

As it’s Corbyn we are talking about , is it an actually second referendum or an aspiration to hold a second referendum? 

[Chindie]

Supposedly they would back a Deal or Remain Referendum, and would support Remain if Labour's alternative deal isn't accepted.

[OutByEaster?]

Regardless of how he got there, I think it's good news.

If he got there because he's realised he needs to take little steps to align with his party and that there will need to be a bit of give and take, then good.

If he got there because the Remain vote is becoming overwhelming and he's hoping it's a populist move that'll get him voted in, then good.

If he got there just to piss off Theresa May and some of the idiots I work with, then, well that's good too.

Good.