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

[peterms]

17 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

That's quite the blanket statement you've got going on there.

Many, including most of those I've seen commenting, not every single individual among the 16m or so, obviously.

17 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Which part of an extension is in their interest? What are they extending it for?

Their interest is in avoiding utter chaos from an unprepared crashing out.  It's not in their interest to extend indefinitely, for the same reason it wasn't in our interest to serve A50 immediately.  But no-one gains from chaos.

[HanoiVillan]

19 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Which part of an extension is in their interest? What are they extending it for?

If the EU had absolutely nothing to gain from an orderly Brexit, compared to a disorderly one, why even bother negotiating, having article 50 or an implementation period? I assume the French government don't want 50-mile tailbacks at Calais any more than we want them at Dover. 

Obviously the EU has a million times less to lose than we do here, but it remains true that an orderly Brexit would be mutually beneficial. 

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If the EU had absolutely nothing to gain from an orderly Brexit, compared to a disorderly one, why even bother negotiating, having article 50 or an implementation period? I assume the French government don't want 50-mile tailbacks at Calais any more than we want them at Dover. 

Obviously the EU has a million times less to lose than we do here, but it remains true that an orderly Brexit would be mutually beneficial. 

Absolutely. Which is why the Governments of all 28 countries, plus the Commission have all agreed a withdrawal treaty to mitigate those problems. Or at the very least, turn them into tomorrow's problems.

The UK Parliament deciding it doesn't want to pass it is not a trigger for "ok, let's talk about it a bit more". It's a trigger for stepping back to avoid the worst effects of the nervous breakdown their neighbour is going through.

The withdrawal agreement is what it is. It is accepted by Parliament. Or somehow we don't leave. Or we step off the cliff. There isn't an option four anymore.

Any of those three choices can be done by March, apart from the hypothetical referendum needed for not leaving. So there is no reason to extend in any other circumstances.

Edited December 19, 2018 by ml1dch

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

If the EU had absolutely nothing to gain from an orderly Brexit, compared to a disorderly one, why even bother negotiating, having article 50 or an implementation period? I assume the French government don't want 50-mile tailbacks at Calais any more than we want them at Dover. 

Obviously the EU has a million times less to lose than we do here, but it remains true that an orderly Brexit would be mutually beneficial. 

There won't be 50-mile tailbacks at Calais, the hauliers and suppliers won't send the trucks in the first place, it's not worth it for either set. The Hauliers will factor in the time when quoting on work, the suppliers will pass that on to the purchaser and all three parties will come to the conclusion it isn't worth it and that's for non-perishables.

Perishables simply won't get sent

[bickster]

Just now, ml1dch said:

There isn't an option four anymore.

 

Don't think Jeremy got the memo 

[HanoiVillan]

25 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Absolutely. Which is why the Governments of all 28 countries, plus the Commission have all agreed a withdrawal treaty to mitigate those problems. Or at the very least, turn them into tomorrow's problems.

The UK Parliament deciding it doesn't want to pass it is not a trigger for "ok, let's talk about it a bit more". It's a trigger for stepping back to avoid the worst effects of the nervous breakdown their neighbour is going through.

The withdrawal agreement is what it is. It is accepted by Parliament. Or somehow we don't leave. Or we step off the cliff. There isn't an option four anymore.

Any of those three choices can be done by March, apart from the hypothetical referendum needed for not leaving. So there is no reason to extend in any other circumstances.

Fair enough, that's where you are. I think it's fairly clear at this point that Peter and I think one thing, and that everyone else in the thread disagrees. I'm going to leave it there for now; we will see what events throw at us. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Immigration is a shared competence - things like access to social services and registration systems are under the control of member states, not the Commission.

Could they do or say a bit more? Probably.

Can they unilaterally say "nothing changes for British people across the EU?" Only if we're comfortable with the Commission deciding third-country immigration policy for 27 independent countries.

I take your point. As someone else (Bicks I think) said, it's an element of posturing,  What I'm trying to put across is that EU solidarity, EU ideals are all about the people of the Europe being able to live and work and travel and...etc. anywhere in the EU, like a big lovely playground.

Sure as you say if the UK becomes a 3rd country, then that doesn't automatically apply, but if you're making the argument about "here's lovely nice brotherly EU and there's nasty spiteful solitary UK", then being mean to workers and residents who originated in the UK but now contribute to Germany or Spain or Poland's national wossname, well that's as closed of mind as May's immigration obsession. It's an ideal that's getting lost.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

if the UK would just come out and guarantee that EU citizens will have some security whatever happens then I’m sure the EU will reciprocate. 

That's the nub of what I'm getting at, or thinking. This is an example of the EU stooping to May's level. As bad as each other. 2 years ago or whatever, I said (as did many) that people shouldn't be being used as trading money between the EU and UK. This is an example of the EU doing exactly that. The tories tried it 2 years ago, They were wrong to do so, and the EU is now. It's wrong whoever does it.

[magnkarl]

Jeremy must've binge-watched allo' allo' yesterday and channeled his inner Rene today. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

Labour would not fight a GE on the basis of proposing Brexit. 

So, you're saying that within weeks, Labour is going to reverse its manifesto (last one) commitment to do Brexit? Really? Your words don't quote say that, Peter, I know. But You seem to be implying Corbyn/Labour's position is going to be reversed within weeks - they've supported the tories in triggering A50, they continue, as you argued earlier, to not want a referendum, not to want to reverse the "will of the people" yet the man i=of (alleged) integrity is now (you're saying) going to oppose Brexit. As I said a few days ago, it's a heads or tails call. In or out. He's going to go from Out to In?

What have I missed. Never mind party games, what is the actual belief, as you see it?

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

So, you're saying that within weeks, Labour is going to reverse its manifesto (last one) commitment to do Brexit? Really? Your words don't quote say that, Peter, I know. But You seem to be implying Corbyn/Labour's position is going to be reversed within weeks - they've supported the tories in triggering A50, they continue, as you argued earlier, to not want a referendum, not to want to reverse the "will of the people" yet the man i=of (alleged) integrity is now (you're saying) going to oppose Brexit. As I said a few days ago, it's a heads or tails call. In or out. He's going to go from Out to In?

What have I missed. Never mind party games, what is the actual belief, as you see it?

Never mind the last manifesto.  Any manifesto is for a specific election and doesn't bind any party to the same position in a future election.

Labour's position has been evolving.  On a second referendum, it has moved from being against one to (at the time of last conference) ruling nothing out.  Probably most members now want one, support in the country is growing, and among the leadership, Starmer and Abbott and Watson are keener than Corbyn.  The current position is that there should be a meaningful vote in Parliament rather than another referendum.  An election would take place after that vote, so that particular position would by then be redundant, and I can easily imagine the position being that a MV was held, the deal was rejected, and now the argument for another referendum has become stronger and should now become the preferred position.

I think that would be quite sensible.  It allows them to show they kept faith with the referendum outcome while it was possible to do so, but now that circumstances have changed so much, and the likely consequences of crashing out are becoming apparent, it makes sense to ask people for another view in the light of far more information than anyone had last time.  I'm sure some would present it as a reversal, or inconsistent, rather than a pragmatic response to changed circumstances, but those kind of debating points will be made no matter what happens.

I've been saying for some time that they would have to wait for a discernible shift in public opinion before changing their position.  I think that's what they have been doing.  I know it doesn't sit easily with lots of people who think there should be strong leadership, ie telling people loudly that they were wrong and expecting them to fall into line, but I think it makes more political sense.

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, Chindie said:

I'm still not convinced that No Deal would become policy. I think that word is doing a lot of lifting in these statements.

I could see a couple of whips resigned, perhaps, but I've so little faith in this parliament I'd be slightly surprised even at that.

Yep, there's definitely enough to wriggle out of the stance.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

The current position is that there should be a meaningful vote in Parliament rather than another referendum.  An election would take place after that vote, so that particular position would by then be redundant, and I can easily imagine the position being that a MV was held, the deal was rejected, and now the argument for another referendum has become stronger and should now become the preferred position.

When does A50 get extended in this timeline and who, on behalf of the UK, puts this proposition (that then has to be agreed unanimously by the EU council)?

As far as I can see it, it would have to be something like the following (I may be missing something or getting things wrong so I'm perfectly happy for anyone to chip in with what might be awry):

Meaningful vote in the week beginning 14th Jan.

Vote of No Confidence perhaps that week, say 17th Jan.

Gov loses, 14 day period begins.

Second vote or Gov gives in 31st Jan.

House dissolved and Election set for Thursday 7th March.

(Assuming Lab campaign on a second ref and Tories don't)

Labour win, Corbyn has just over three weeks to convince the EU council to extend A50 (for long enough to have a second ref and the campaign necessary - at least a month?).

Tories win, emergency legislation needed to pass current deal I'd have thought.

Hung Parliament. Eek. Someone has to convince May to go and try to extend A50 whilst horse-trading and general shenanigans take place.

All the while Parliament has been doing little or no business for almost two months. No SIs passed as per previous post and no bills have been sorted out or passed to attempt to mitigate for a no deal scenario.

Edited December 19, 2018 by snowychap
Second vote was never going to be held in my initial timeline!

[peterms]

I assume the EU and UK are working out the process already, and not seeing it as a purely legal and formal issue.  It's essentially a political issue, and the legal stuff is important, but won't be allowed to prevent something if people want it to happen.  I'd have thought if they reckon there's a reasonable chance of an outcome more preferable to them, they would be accommodating.  If it just looks like more internal arguments leading nowhere, then there must be more chance of them falling back on the legal process and saying it can't be varied.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

I assume the EU and UK are working out the process already

On whose instructions would someone be working out this process for the UK?

[peterms]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

On whose instructions would someone be working out this process for the UK?

Head of the civil service should be preparing for many eventualities, including those that are not current government policy, especially if some are clearly possible even if unwanted.

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Head of the civil service should be preparing for many eventualities.

I have a feeling that the Head of the Civil Service is doing nothing, and being instructed to do nothing as part of the Government's ongoing plan to hold the gun of "No Deal" to the heads of those in Parliament until they accept the only deal that Mrs May is going to consider. Mrs May will burn the country down if we don't agree she's right. Her handling of this has been monstrous.

 

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I have a feeling that the Head of the Civil Service is doing nothing, and being instructed to do nothing as part of the Government's ongoing plan to hold the gun of "No Deal" to the heads of those in Parliament until they accept the only deal that Mrs May is going to consider. Mrs May will burn the country down if we don't agree she's right. Her handling of this has been monstrous.

 

I'd be interested in a civil servant's take on that.  My reading would be that this would be a politicisation of the civil service which goes against agreed codes of behaviour.  They have a duty to advise, and that requires research and exploring options.  For a PM to seek to prevent that, especially in the context of the kind of consequences being aired in the media, would be outwith the bounds of acceptable conduct.

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, peterms said:

Head of the civil service should be preparing for many eventualities, including those that are not current government policy, especially if some are clearly possible even if unwanted.

He may, domestically, be preparing all sorts of things. People within the EU will likely also have been preparing for many eventualities.

That, surely, is vastly different from 'the UK and the EU working out the process already'.

They may each be working out their own steps but that doesn't mean they know how to tango.

Edited December 19, 2018 by snowychap

[peterms]

Just now, snowychap said:

He may, domestically, be preparing all sorts of things. People within the EU will likely also have been preparing for many eventualities.

That, surely, is vastly different from 'the UK and the EU working out the process already'.

I assume there are continuing discussions, covering this among other things.