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

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

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.

Good. I hope the sanctity of Civil Service remains intact.

 

[snowychap]

25 minutes ago, peterms said:

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

Are you also assuming that everything is for the best?

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by snowychap

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Are you also assuming that everything is for the best?

 

No, that's @Dr_Pangloss you're thinking of.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

No, that's @Dr_Pangloss you're thinking of.

I know.

[snowychap]

26 minutes ago, peterms said:

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

As the edit of my previous post may have got lost in timings:

Again, I think there's a difference between civil servants on both sides working out practical steps that they may suggest to politicans in multifarious circumstances and two different sides working out and negotiating a process which, as you've acknowledged, is both legal and political without any instruction to do so from the political decision makers.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

As the edit of my previous post may have got lost in timings:

Again, I think there's a difference between civil servants on both sides working out practical steps that they may suggest to politicans in multifarious circumstances and two different sides working out and negotiating a process which, as you've acknowledged, is both legal and political without any instruction to do so from the political decision makers.

Maybe it's a semantic distinction.  I assume the civil servants on both sides will be exploring what would be required by way of mechanics and process for some possible scenarios.  I also assume they speak to each other, and don't do this in splendid isolation.  I wouldn't call that negotiation in the sense of striking a deal.  Possibly negotiation as in to negotiate a route, though I assume they are exploring more than one scenario, whereas in order to negotiate a route, you have to have chosen one.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

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.

Presumably (if it came to this, which it probably won't, but for the sake of argument) it would be passed in the 'wash up', which would move it further forward in your timeline here. 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Presumably (if it came to this, which it probably won't, but for the sake of argument) it would be passed in the 'wash up', which would move it further forward in your timeline here.

Two things:

Would there be a 'wash up' in the case of an FTPA (no confidence-initiated) dissolution?

Asking for an A50 extension doesn't require any parliamentary action, does it? Though any actual extension (i.e. one agreed upon by the UK and the EU Council) would require a subsequent change in Exit Day, I guess.

[peterms]

Good thread here.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Two things:

Would there be a 'wash up' in the case of an FTPA (no confidence-initiated) dissolution?

Asking for an A50 extension doesn't require any parliamentary action, does it? Though any actual extension (i.e. one agreed upon by the UK and the EU Council) would require a subsequent change in Exit Day, I guess.

Honest answers:

1) I don't know

2) You're right, I don't think it does need parliamentary action, but people might want a vote to look legitimate. 

[snowychap]

18 minutes ago, peterms said:

Maybe it's a semantic distinction.  I assume the civil servants on both sides will be exploring what would be required by way of mechanics and process for some possible scenarios.  I also assume they speak to each other, and don't do this in splendid isolation.  I wouldn't call that negotiation in the sense of striking a deal.  Possibly negotiation as in to negotiate a route, though I assume they are exploring more than one scenario, whereas in order to negotiate a route, you have to have chosen one.

Which is my point, really.

It's all very well both sides being aware of what each step in the process is or should be, e.g. the UK asks the EU Council, each individual member of the EU27 makes its decision somehow and then everyone sees where they are and further discussions ensue.

Within these steps there are political processes and discussions which can't be foreseen in terms of consequences or timings. Obviously, it may all be just a matter of pushing a button and it happening as per the civil servants best case scenarios but it may well not be.

To return to a previous analogy, we may both know our steps and may want to tango but it just needs one of the participants to kick the other in the shins (either accidently or intentionally) and it's suddenly not quite as simple as was assumed.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Honest answers:

1) I don't know

2) You're right, I don't think it does need parliamentary action, but people might want a vote to look legitimate. 

I don't either.

I'm not trying to catch anyone out or put up anything as definitive, I'm just questioning how we get to a conclusion that others have put up as the way forward.

I think the timing and the various unknowns along the way are very important to consider because I think what underlines the whole Brexit debacle (from deciding upon holding the referendum until now - and in all likelihood well beyond) is that people have been to keen to assume, to ignore, to hope, to expect, to have faith and, as a result, not to consider or to plan.

[peterms]

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

To return to a previous analogy, we may both know our steps and may want to tango but it just needs one of the participants to kick the other in the shins (either accidently or intentionally) and it's suddenly not quite as simple as was assumed. 

From the EU point of view, perhaps they feel they didn't really want to tango but turned up anyway, all dressed up, to find David Davis in a tutu and rugby boots, while back at home, his colleagues were dancing the Maypole but trying to garotte each other with the ribbons.

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

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.

While we're war-gaming, I'll throw one out there.

I think that if this is going to be stopped, Labour won't be the ones to initiate anything, and it would rely on some Conservative MPs sacrificing their careers in the national interest. So even before I start it's clearly a long-shot.

A few (and it only needs to be a few) Tory MPs of the Greening / Boles variety go to Labour and say that they will support a no-confidence motion and allow Corbyn to form a minority Government, on the proviso that he cancels the article 50 notification. Once that happens, their support ends - meaning that the election that he wants will then happen. 

Those Tory MPs having resigned the whip basically give up their political careers, but know that they did so in saving their country from ruin (in the immediate term at least, obviously everything is f***** in the medium term whatever happens)

If it needed 20 of them, it would be clearly a non-starter. But five or six...

Thoroughly unlikely, I accept. And we'd have to be getting well into March before the desperation set in enough. But I'm yet to see any version of the next three months that I'd describe as likely. So it'll do until the mess gets here.

[snowychap]

29 minutes ago, peterms said:

From the EU point of view, perhaps they feel they didn't really want to tango but turned up anyway, all dressed up, to find David Davis in a tutu and rugby boots, while back at home, his colleagues were dancing the Maypole but trying to garotte each other with the ribbons.

My imaginative follies come across as disappointingly prosaic in comparison.

[NurembergVillan]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

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.

1

There's already been an issue of contempt of Parliament.

Many in this country, myself included, have been looking over the pond at what we thought was a tinpot dictatorship playing out when in reality we've got our own right here, only it's worse.

I wouldn't be shocked to ever learn that Mrs May was a twin who ate her sibling in the womb.

[Chindie]

The sun will set in the East and the moon will be spread on a cracker before an MP in this Parliament sacrifices their career, let alone Tories doing so to give Corbyn power, even if it's for 5 minutes, imo.

Unfortunately.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said:

There's already been an issue of contempt of Parliament.

Many in this country, myself included, have been looking over the pond at what we thought was a tinpot dictatorship playing out when in reality we've got our own right here, only it's worse.

I wouldn't be shocked to ever learn that Mrs May was a twin who ate her sibling in the womb.

I really think it's worse in the US.  I find it hard to imagine the tory party turning a blind eye to the levels of stupidity, greed, disloyalty and outright criminality that the Republicans seem prepared to accept.

[OutByEaster?]

A thought occurred to me. Presuming that we either find a deal we agree on (haha) or plummet headlong from the EU in a ball of fire - one of these two sets of people are going to have to negotiate those much-mentioned new trade deals and our relationship with the rest of the world on our behalf. That's a real opportunity for the UK to set out an economic and trade policy through standards of integrity and decency that really benefit the population  - but it'll be an opportunity overseen by this Government. I'm more scared than I was before.

 

[Chindie]

The new trade deals would need to be gathered up at an obscene rate, we would be negotiating them on the backfoot and desperate to replace huge chunks of our economy.

The reincarnation of Gandhi could be negotiating them and we'd be grabbing whatever we could, integrity would be nowhere near the discussion.