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

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

Yes, it needs 'conditions', i.e. agreement, of the EU27. I'd say with the correct motivation that's pretty much a formality. 'One of the largest contributors wants to stay in, are you OK with that?'

It's more difficult than that.

The UK currently has a deal within the EU that is like the gold plated deal with a cherry on top, and a lot of the EU doesn't really like that. Certainly they want to reform rebates (read 'get rid of' and we've got a bumper one. 

We (Cameron) also embarrassed them. He went to the EU to get further concessions, he got some, with the implicit understanding Brexit was not happening. And then it did.

And there is opportunity for various EU members in our leaving. They can poach bits of the city, with the associated big earners. They can nick some manufacturing business, etc etc. Overall the EU as whole would take a hit but not an enormous one, and they might garner some new business to take the edge off.

And they don't want to encourage this kind of thing.

It's far from a forgone conclusion we'd be welcomed with open arms, and if it were it would not be on the terms we have now I'd wager good money.

[darrenm]

11 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's more difficult than that.

The UK currently has a deal within the EU that is like the gold plated deal with a cherry on top, and a lot of the EU doesn't really like that. Certainly they want to reform rebates (read 'get rid of' and we've got a bumper one. 

We (Cameron) also embarrassed them. He went to the EU to get further concessions, he got some, with the implicit understanding Brexit was not happening. And then it did.

And there is opportunity for various EU members in our leaving. They can poach bits of the city, with the associated big earners. They can nick some manufacturing business, etc etc. Overall the EU as whole would take a hit but not an enormous one, and they might garner some new business to take the edge off.

And they don't want to encourage this kind of thing.

It's far from a forgone conclusion we'd be welcomed with open arms, and if it were it would not be on the terms we have now I'd wager good money.

Equally plausible. Yours is perhaps more realistic.

Or perhaps even more realistic is marching on with no deal, 15 mile truck tailbacks in Dover and Calais, an open 'closed' border in NI, food and fuel crises, customs systems breaking down, run on the pound, economy tanking, huge tariffs, exploitative deals from everywhere else because we have nothing to export (OMG I've just thought of a brilliant Civ based meme). 

I have to believe that at some point, blighty common sense will kick in.

[tonyh29]

23 minutes ago, Chindie said:

We (Cameron) also embarrassed them. He went to the EU to get further concessions, he got some, with the implicit understanding Brexit was not happening. And then it did.

Don't think that's the case  ..Cameron committed to an In/Out referendum in 2013   , it was then included in the manifesto ( yes I know it was promised once before and manifesto's are aspirations rather than policy when it suits )

He went for a deal , the EU pretty much gave him nothing  , Merkel in particular shot down the freedom of movement demand .. he did manage to get the emergency break but it was never going to be enough .... but any discussions with EU were always on the understanding that Cameron would have to put it to the British people  ...

I can see why the EU didn't want to cave in to the demands , but equally I suspect if they had a time machine and could do it again they might have given a bit more ..

 

[Xann]

Quote

FOR a think tank few have heard of, the Legatum Institute has a lot of influence. Funded with £4m a year from secretive billionaire Christopher Chandler, its surveys are namechecked by newspaper columnists, while it promotes the hard Brexit cause from its Mayfair offices.

As the Eye went to press, Legatum was planning to show its pulling power at the Conservative party conference, where Boris Johnson would be star speaker at a Legatum rally on how to create a “Global Britain”. If Johnson resigns from government to lead a right-wing assault on Theresa May, he will make good use of Legatum’s argument that no compromise that leaves Britain “locked in” to EU regulations or standards is acceptable.

The think-tank was not always a home for EU rejectionists. Until September 2016 it supported liberal ideas and employed acclaimed US historian Anne Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev, an authority on oppression in Putin’s Russia. Then Baroness (Philippa) Stroud took over. Best known as an ally of Iain Duncan Smith, she had little time for colleagues who worried Brexit might go wrong. “Almost the entire staff has left or been fired,” one ex-Legatum employee tells the Eye. “Some agreed to be fired or even jockeyed to be fired in order to be paid off.”

Right-wing ministers
In their place have come the hardmen and women of the Tory right. Toby Baxendale, who helped run Andrea Leadsom’s Tory leadership campaign, is a trustee. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave, is a senior fellow, along with Tim Montgomerie, founder of Conservative Home, who recently accused the BBC of “looking unpatriotic” when it reported that the French were poaching jobs from post-Brexit Britain.

Right-wing ministers have welcomed Legatum’s “expertise”. It’s not just Johnson who entertains its gurus. Shanker Singham, Legatum’s director of economic policy, has advised David Davis and Liam Fox. Although the media describe Singham as a “former US trade negotiator”, a former US trade official told the Times: “He didn’t negotiate anything.” To imply that he was an authority on trade deals was “a bit of a stretch”.

Although Montgomerie plays the patriotic card, no organisation could be further from Britain than the Legatum Institute. It is funded by a foundation registered in Bermuda and controlled by a company in the Cayman Islands. Behind it stands Christopher Chandler, a remarkably shy billionaire from New Zealand. With his brother Richard, he turned a family inheritance of $10m into $5bn. They have given just one press interview in the 21st century – to Institutional Investor in 2006. Even then, Richard did most of the talking.

The Chandlers’ Sovereign Global Investment made money by finding undervalued assets the rest of market ignored, Richard explained – “transition economies or distressed sectors where information is not easily available and standard metrics don’t apply”. Sovereign was one of the first funds to pile into Brazil when the country opened to outside investors in 1991. It moved into Russia after the collapse of communism, and bought up assets in Japan and Korea during the banking crisis of the early 2000s.

The idea that investors could swoop on cheap assets after Brexit wrecks the British economy is, of course, so preposterous no sane person could entertain it. For, as no less a statesman than Boris Johnson told the Telegraph: “I am here to tell you that this country will succeed in its new national enterprise, and succeed mightily.” Who can doubt it?

Private Eye

[Chindie]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Don't think that's the case  ..Cameron committed to an In/Out referendum in 2013   , it was then included in the manifesto ( yes I know it was promised once before and manifesto's are aspirations rather than policy when it suits )

He went for a deal , the EU pretty much gave him nothing  , Merkel in particular shot down the freedom of movement demand .. he did manage to get the emergency break but it was never going to be enough .... but any discussions with EU were always on the understanding that Cameron would have to put it to the British people  ...

I can see why the EU didn't want to cave in to the demands , but equally I suspect if they had a time machine and could do it again they might have given a bit more ..

 

Do you not think that there are going to be elements in the EU that look at the UK and see the deal now, and see that they have given more concessions(albeit minor - nothing was ever going to happen on movement, ever), and then had it rejected, they might be a bit miffed?

[bickster]

Quote

Theresa May under pressure over ‘secret advice’ on halting Brexit

Prime minister is sent FOI request to publish legal guidance thought to argue that UK can stop EU divorce process at any time

Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.

The calls for the prime minister to reveal advice from the country’s top legal experts follow government statements declaring that Brexit is now unstoppable, and that MPs will have to choose between whatever deal is on offer next year – even if it is a bad one – or no deal at all.

Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.

Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.

The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms.

“Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris, former director general of the EU council’s legal service, and of Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the European commission president.” She says “there is no time to waste” and adds: “It is important that this advice is made available to the British public and their representatives in parliament as soon as possible.”

Leading figures who oppose a hard Brexit, and reject the idea that the process is unstoppable, argue that the public is being hoodwinked by ministers into believing that there is now no alternative to leaving. Simor says this is a “policy” judgment, not a legal one.

Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister, who publishes a book this week on how to stop Brexit, told the Observer: “The claim that article 50 is irreversible was always a myth put about by Brexiters who want to stop the British people from changing their minds. Theresa May’s threat that MPs will have to vote for whatever deal she presents to them next autumn, otherwise the UK will crash out of the EU without a deal, is also patent nonsense. Article 50 was never the one-way conveyor belt to Brexit as claimed by the government. It can be stopped at any point.”

He said that MPs should ask themselves one question when they come to vote in a year’s time: “Does the deal measure up to the promises made by Brexiters to their constituents before the referendum? If not, MPs should reject the deal, urge the government and the EU to stop the clock, and give the country the opportunity to think again.”

Clegg added: “As countless EU leaders have said in private and in public – most recently [French] President Macron – there remains a route back for the UK into a reformed EU. This does not mean simply turning the clock back to the day before the referendum, but forging a new status for the UK in an outer circle of EU membership as the core countries proceed with deeper integration.”

Clegg suggests that former prime minister John Major and current Netherlands prime minister Mark Rutte should co-chair a special UK-EU convention that would have the task of “repositioning Britain in one of the outer rings of the EU’s orbit”.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna said that, as it becomes clearer that the Brexiter pledges would not be met, the public had a right to know that leaving was not the only option. “Brexit is proving hugely more complex than people were told it would be. Many of the promises made – like the famous £350m extra per week for the NHS – clearly won’t be delivered. As a result, increasingly voters ask whether, if a good agreement cannot be reached and the final deal looks fundamentally different to that which they were promised, can the UK decide to halt the article 50 process? The consensus among lawyers is that we still have a choice.

“Legally, there is nothing inevitable about this process and the UK retains the right to change its mind. Politically, many EU partners have indicated they have no objections to this.”

There is also growing anger over the government’s continuing refusal to publish studies it is conducting on the impact that Brexit will have on different sectors of the economy. Labour MP David Lammy said: “It is frankly quite absurd that the Department for Exiting the European Union is refusing to publish these studies while ministers go around talking about the repatriation of parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control.”

A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.”

grauniad

 

[tonyh29]

36 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Do you not think that there are going to be elements in the EU that look at the UK and see the deal now, and see that they have given more concessions(albeit minor - nothing was ever going to happen on movement, ever), and then had it rejected, they might be a bit miffed?

that's not the same as Cameron embarrassing them though is it ?

 

I've seen the arguments that the EU have given us many a concession , maybe they felt enough is enough and wanted to force our hand ..maybe they thought like Ireland that No really means yes and that we wouldn't really go (maybe we still won't but I'd say it 99% sure we will) ... who knows maybe it was the French and German plan all along and we fell for it

I still think there is a good deal to be had for both parties and it's in everyone's interest to resolve it , the problem is both sides seem more concerned with grandstanding rather than getting things done .. it's not as simple as we bend and take whatever the EU gives us , no matter what people on this forum think .... we do have a lot to offer the EU  (and they us) so it makes sense to get deals done ..and maybe not just for our benefit  , Ireland depends on the US and UK markets so much that, after Brexit, almost two-thirds of Irish exports will be for markets outside the 26 other remaining EU members ....The EU can now be seen as an institution limiting Ireland’s independence on business taxes; provoking a trade war with its second largest market  and delivering a hard border .... if you are in Irelands position right now , what would you be thinking ?

 

[darrenm]

DAG: https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/918038777054064640

A thread, fwiw, on why I now think Article 50 is unilaterally revocable, after 18 months of being undecided.

Reply Link

2. Have in your mind's eye the zoom function on Google maps or Google Earth.

3. Let's zoom in on Article 50(2). 

Article 50 is here: http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

4. "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention...".

5. Let's zoom in on one word: "intention".

That is what is being notified. Not a decision. 

But an intention.

6. But what intention? Any old intention? 

We need to zoom back out.

7. Let zoom in on Article 50(1): "Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirement"

8. So that is the intention. But what if a Member State changes its decision "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"?

9. The implication must be that the change of intention must be capable of being notified too.

10. And as a general principle of law, notices and notifications are revocable, if it does not take immediate effect. A50 gives two years.

11. So at first glance, good argument for unilateral revocation.

But.

12. We need to zoom out to A50.

If there is unilateral revocation, this could also undermine the scheme of Article 50 as a whole.

13. A departing member state could tactically revoke notification to re-set two year deadline. 

Hokey-cokey negotiation.

14. So looking at A50 as a whole, there is a good argument that unilateral revocation(s) would undermine A50's scheme and structure.

15. And that was where my thinking took me. Good legal arguments either way. The wording suggested yes, scheme of A50 suggested no.

16. An ambiguous position. And given clauses should never be interpreted in vacuum, maybe "no" was better construction of A50 as a whole.

17. And then recently I had a further idea, which shifted me from 'undecided' to 'yes'. That A50 was unilaterally revocable.

18. We need to zoom out from Article 50(2) and even from Article 50.

We need to zoom now to the EU treaties as a whole.

19. Article 50 is also not in a vacuum. Not stand alone.

The construction of Article 50 would be done in the context of EU treaties.

20. (A word on terminology. You "interpret" words and phrases. But you "construct" a provision to work out its legal effect.)

21. The treaties are there to promote and provide for ever close union.

Explicit and implicit in many places, including Article 1 TEU.

22. So, if there is an ambiguity, it would be presumably decided on basis of what kept union together rather than not together.

23. Otherwise the treaty principles of ever closer union etc would not have effect.

Unilateral revocation would have benefit of doubt.

24. This is only an opinion. No lawyer knows. And it would help if A50 had been better drafted.

25. But I think considering A50 in context of EU treaties as a whole, notification of an intention must be capable of unilateral revocation.

26. I hope this was helpful and not too much of a bore.

 

[ml1dch]

17 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 but once we leave , ... that's £30 a tonne EU subsidies on Wheat we can kiss goodbye to  and now 80% off a chicken  ..with all that spare money we can buy all the food we want  ... from the empty shelves in our supermarkets 

Still, you probably know something that she doesn't.

http://eureferendum.com

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has responded to Theresa May's trade plans with a warning that without a robust new deal with the EU, UK shoppers "will be hit with reduced availability of affordable goods with almost immediate effect". CEO of the BRC Helen Dickinson writes:

The UK's future trade policy is the most significant aspect of the Brexit negotiations for consumers. ... Annual customs declarations would jump from 55 to 250 million and with four million trucks crossing the border between the UK and EU each year, new red tape, border controls and checks would mean delays at ports of up to two to three days for some products. Businesses and consumers would face higher costs, gaps on shelves and product shortages

Edited October 11, 2017 by ml1dch

[blandy]

52 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I still think there is a good deal to be had for both parties and it's in everyone's interest to resolve it , the problem is both sides seem more concerned with grandstanding rather than getting things done ..

I don't think this is quite how I see it, Tony.

The EU bod Barnier has done a little bit of grandstanding, perhaps, arguably.

The UK side seems to me at least to have different people doing different things. There's been plenty of grandstanding bluster from Fox and Johnston and Mogg, there's been almost the opposite from Hammond - words about just minimum disruption...etc. and then May somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.So it's not really a surprise that the EU seem to say that they don't know what the UK wants - because the tories don't know what they want.

The 3 things that were supposed to be being talked about - the Irish border, the money and the rights of people - none of these is seeming to progress, the last 2 because the tories don't have a clear view and position, and the Irish border because it's really difficult and because I don't see how you can sort that without understanding what the trade arrangements and movement of people arrangements will be post brexit. I think the EU is probaly wrong to want to have that resolved before trade talks - it's solvable if there's open movement of goods and people (i.e. like now) but not solvable if there's none.

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

The UK side seems ot me at least to have different people doing different things. There's been plenty of grandstanding bluster from Fox and Johnston and Mogg, there;s been almost the opposite from Hammond - words about just minimum disruption...etc. 

Even then, Hammond still doesn't really get it. Today he has said “Every pound spent on a hard customs border is a pound that can’t be spent on the NHS or tackling the deficit"

A hard border with customs checks will be required for any scenario outside the Single Market. If the talks had gone perfectly smoothly and we were about to sign off on a "mutually beneficial trade deal", the stuff we send across to the EU will still be checked on entry to make sure that standards are being upheld.

So even the players who aren't completely hopeless are still a bit hopeless.

Edited October 11, 2017 by ml1dch

[tonyh29]

29 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Still, you probably know something that she doesn't.

http://eureferendum.com

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has responded to Theresa May's trade plans with a warning that without a robust new deal with the EU, UK shoppers "will be hit with reduced availability of affordable goods with almost immediate effect". CEO of the BRC Helen Dickinson writes:

The UK's future trade policy is the most significant aspect of the Brexit negotiations for consumers. ... Annual customs declarations would jump from 55 to 250 million and with four million trucks crossing the border between the UK and EU each year, new red tape, border controls and checks would mean delays at ports of up to two to three days for some products. Businesses and consumers would face higher costs, gaps on shelves and product shortages

I'd take it more seriously if it wasn't under a paragraph saying UK airlines could find they have to stop flying

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'd take it more seriously if it wasn't under a paragraph saying UK airlines could find they have to stop flying

Expert on european aviation regulation, are you Tony?

Which part of the scenario of a "no deal" brexit means that there'd be no issues with Aviation?

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

that's not the same as Cameron embarrassing them though is it ?

 

I've seen the arguments that the EU have given us many a concession , maybe they felt enough is enough and wanted to force our hand ..maybe they thought like Ireland that No really means yes and that we wouldn't really go (maybe we still won't but I'd say it 99% sure we will) ... who knows maybe it was the French and German plan all along and we fell for it

I still think there is a good deal to be had for both parties and it's in everyone's interest to resolve it , the problem is both sides seem more concerned with grandstanding rather than getting things done .. it's not as simple as we bend and take whatever the EU gives us , no matter what people on this forum think .... we do have a lot to offer the EU  (and they us) so it makes sense to get deals done ..and maybe not just for our benefit  , Ireland depends on the US and UK markets so much that, after Brexit, almost two-thirds of Irish exports will be for markets outside the 26 other remaining EU members ....The EU can now be seen as an institution limiting Ireland’s independence on business taxes; provoking a trade war with its second largest market  and delivering a hard border .... if you are in Irelands position right now , what would you be thinking ?

 

They aren't far away imo.

I fundamentally disagree both sides are grandstanding. The EU is sat there with clear public guidelines and mandates asking us to get on with it. We've done all the grandstanding seemingly because it's all we can do at the moment.

Certainly a deal can be done. Increasingly though it looks like it won't be. Our stupid red lines will preclude it. And we kinda do have to dance to the EU's tune, or not at all. After all, we've left the club but want to keep a few benefits but not pay the tab. It's their club though, and their rules.

We certainly can argue we have a lot to offer, but again and again it comes back to the simple fact the EU27 has bigger pockets than we do alone. We've the weaker hand in a game whose rules we don't set. Our hand is try to get a deal or walk away, and walk away is a dreadful choice but an easy one.

Regarding Ireland, it's hardly the EU's fault we've left and left Ireland in some trouble.

[ml1dch]

27 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'd take it more seriously if it wasn't under a paragraph saying UK airlines could find they have to stop flying

Which is something that the airlines, their regulator and their union have all said is a possibility.

There are two options - either you have a more in-depth knowledge of all these industries than all the people involved in them, or you maybe haven't thought about this as much as you could have.

And given you've not gone much further than "it'll be fine, just because it will be fine", I'd not be too confident on the first possibility winning out.

Edited October 11, 2017 by ml1dch

[HanoiVillan]

33 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'd take it more seriously if it wasn't under a paragraph saying UK airlines could find they have to stop flying

This is widely considered a real possibility, as currently we are leaving Open Skies as well as the EU. 

[Chindie]

It's also a problem approaching quickly, given the lead times airlines require. You kinda need that solved rather quickly.

[ml1dch]

 

51 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's also a problem approaching quickly, given the lead times airlines require. You kinda need that solved rather quickly.

Basically March 2018. Take off / landing slots are booked 12 months in advance by all accounts, so without a deal in place that covers our future absence from the ECAA then airlines won't book slots and risk not being able to use them.

Currently we follow laws on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators [Regulation (EC) No 785/2004], on the code of conduct for computerized reservation systems [Regulation (EC) No 80/2009], rules for statistical returns [Regulation (EC) No 437/2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1358/2003], air services agreements with third countries [Regulation (EC) No 847/2004], and the allocation of airport slots [Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93] - but I'm sure we'll have replacement legislation written, implemented and accepted by every other country we fly to in plenty of time.

Tony knows all this though, and knows that it'll be fine.

 

(List of regulations taken from http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86360)

Edited October 11, 2017 by ml1dch

[Chindie]

I'm fairly sure handwaving legislation is internationally recognised and accepted.

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'm fairly sure handwaving legislation is internationally recognised and accepted.

I think that point was ratified in the famous Everything Was Fine Before So Why Wouldn't It Be In The Future treaty of 2015.