Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 244 of 887 (824936)
12-05-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by PaulK
12-04-2017 4:38 PM


Re: Will Ireland derail Brexit?
In principle, if everyone agrees I think it could be called off.
From a strictly legal point of view, it's not entirely clear. Per the treaty as written; the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. There is a provision that this date can be extended by mutual agreement, but that's intended to give more time for negotiations. I suppose it could be indefinitely extended, but that's not really in line with the meaning of the treaty.
Rejoining the EU would, in theory, mean applying as a new member. Now, in one sense that would be simple - UK legislation is already in line with EU legislation, so the accession process can be completed as a formailty. Except that the UK currently has a bit of a cushy deal with the EU including several opt-outs. Applying as a new member would mean having to negotiate these anew; and some member-states (and the current Commission) are opposed in principle to the idea of any new opt-outs and exceptions in future accessions.
In practice I think it's just a matter of political will - if member states all agree that the process can be cancelled, then it can be. If they don't then it can't. There's no precedent for this sort of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2017 4:38 PM PaulK has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 251 of 887 (832499)
05-04-2018 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Diomedes
05-04-2018 3:35 PM


Re: House of Lords delivers setback to May
What is the legality of calling a second referendum? I am assuming that would be something parliament would have to propose? Or can the Prime Minister simply call for another one on her own?
Referendums have no legal force in UK law. I don't see any particular reason why the government couldn't call a referendum without asking Parliament, though it would be seen as more legitimate if it was legislated. There is legislation covering the conduct of referendums authorised by an Act of Parliament. A referendum done by the government on it's own sounds more like a publicly-funded opinion poll.
And the 'publicly funded' bit is probably important. I'm a little hazy on how much latitude the government has to spend it's budget. There is about US$2 billion set aside in this year's budget as a emergency panic fund for costs incurred by Brexit going badly wrong. Could you get away with using that for a referendum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Diomedes, posted 05-04-2018 3:35 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 271 of 887 (840214)
09-25-2018 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by LamarkNewAge
09-22-2018 12:54 AM


Re: On Scotland and the confusing over "nationalism".
It is a contradiction if one understands that the Scottish Nationalist Party is actually anti-nationalist, but not a contradiction to many SNP supporters.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but in what sense is the SNP anti-nationalist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-22-2018 12:54 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-25-2018 8:03 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 275 of 887 (840358)
09-27-2018 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by LamarkNewAge
09-25-2018 8:03 PM


Re: On Scotland and the confusing over "nationalism".
The SNP is strongly in favor of remaining in the E.U., and with the border-free immigration between member states.
If all you meant was that the SNP is pro-EU, then word it that way. That's not the same thing as anti-nationalist. All it means is that they're nationalists who believe their nation is better off in a large free-trade bloc than in some kind of hermit kingdom.
A lot of nationalist parties are in favour of EU membership - particularly 'regionalist' parties; that is, nationalists whose nation is not an independent country. The existence of the EU has actually buoyed such parties; since many people felt that their tiny nation was not a viable economic entity by itself; but if it can gain independence while remaining part of an integrated market with open borders then all is good. Being a tiny majority against a huge Spanish (for example) majority seems very different than being a tiny minority in a bloc which has no majority nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-25-2018 8:03 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-27-2018 7:55 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 287 of 887 (842016)
10-25-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Straggler
10-24-2018 5:05 PM


Re: Boris to the rescue?
She looks set to survive the week now. The conservative MPs seem to think that Theresa May remains the person best placed to drive us over the cliff edge. Apparently the alternatives are even less appealing than she is.
The problem with the British Commons at the moment as I see it, is that there is a clear majority against remaining in the EU; and a clear majority against the kind of total separation from the European market favoured by Johnson and ilk; but no majority in favour of any compromise between these two positions. I see no solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2018 5:05 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Diomedes, posted 10-25-2018 2:42 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 289 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-27-2018 12:58 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 291 of 887 (842153)
10-27-2018 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Straggler
10-27-2018 3:53 AM


Re: Boris to the rescue?
I’m attempting to get a Spanish passport....
Irish application in process. Slightly more pressing for me since no one seems to have any idea what my legal residency status will be come March.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2018 3:53 AM Straggler has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 314 of 887 (843475)
11-18-2018 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by vimesey
11-17-2018 5:50 PM


I think they're too bored with Brexit to even contemplate a mild outcry, much less civil disobedience or revolt.
I don't think there'd be civil unrest or anything like that, but I do think a fair few people would see it as a betrayal of democracy and would be driven towards the more angry nationalist populism that's becoming popular in much of Europe these days. I'm too disconnected from British society these days to know how many people we'd be talking about here.
One of the eternal problems with democratic legitimacy - Straggler mentioned he lives somewhere that voted overwhelmingly Remain. My home town by contrast, was one of the strongest Leave votes in the country. It's very easy to gain the impression that your opinion is the default because most people you interact with in your daily life agree with you, or keep their mouth shut because they don't want an argument where they're outnumbered. Then attempts to find compromise between the conflicting views in society are easy to paint as a tiny elite ignoring the voice of the people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by vimesey, posted 11-17-2018 5:50 PM vimesey has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 317 of 887 (844154)
11-26-2018 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Diomedes
11-25-2018 12:20 PM


The EU representatives are voting in favor of the deal. They actually made their decision in less than an hour. Which leads me to believe that it is likely more favorable to the EU than it is to the UK.
Or because they've spent the last few months negotiating it. No decisions were being made at the Council meeting. It's not like the deal was sprung on them and they had to carefully take it in and assess the consequences. They've been debating it for months, came to a text all were agreed on, and then held a formal vote to rubber stamp it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Diomedes, posted 11-25-2018 12:20 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 319 of 887 (844266)
11-27-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Diomedes
11-27-2018 10:18 AM


Re: Brexit Deal vote date set for December 11th
Right now, the likelihood of the deal passing parliament appear to be slim. However, considering there is no alternative and the EU has stated they will not negotiate further, I am wondering if various MPs will just grudgingly vote in favor of the deal. It seems the British people are fed up with the bickering and just want them to get on with it.
The DUP, of all people, have decided it's better than no deal.
One concern will be the ruling by the ECJ on whether the UK can legally cancel Brexit unilaterally. The SNP seem to be suggesting that, if it's ruled they can, then they don't need to vote for this deal, since the options will no longer be 'this deal or no deal'; there would then be the option to cancel the whole affair.
Which is all well and good, but strikes me as extraordinarily naive. Sure they can nix the deal by voting together with the hard Brexiteers, but from where do they then think the parliamentary majority in favour of cancelling Brexit is going to come?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Diomedes, posted 11-27-2018 10:18 AM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Diomedes, posted 11-27-2018 2:31 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 326 of 887 (844798)
12-05-2018 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Diomedes
12-05-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Even more Brexit turmoil
2. The deal gets voted on, loses, and there is a hard Brexit. Personally, I doubt this will occur. It appears no one, including the British people, want to see no deal after all these shenanigans.
I disagree - I think this is by far the most likely option. Contrary to the idea that nobody wants no deal; there is a very vocal constituency firmly opposed to any deal; since they've stated over and ovr again since the referendum that any plausible deal is a betrayal of the leave vote. You go on to mention one of these people:
There is one alternate option I didn't mention which is also a possibility: the deal gets voted down and Theresa May gets a no confidence vote or resigns. This could set the stage for Boris Johnson stepping in. If that occurs, my suspicion is he may just opt for a hard Brexit ultimatum. Maybe trying to put the screws to the EU. Although I doubt that would have much effect. Unless he can argue that a Norway or Canada style deal is still possible.
Let's be clear - despite citing Norway as a model of a successful country outside the EU during the referendum campaign; Johnson, Rees-Mogg and their lot have since declared that they would rather dismember and consume their own family members than accept anything remotely resembling the position Norway is currently in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Diomedes, posted 12-05-2018 9:55 AM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2018 1:21 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 347 of 887 (845199)
12-13-2018 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by PaulK
12-13-2018 12:17 AM


Re: No Brexit?
No Brexit is on the table in that the Government has the power to back out of Brexit.
The government does not have the power to back out now - it's already enacted into law. It would need to be Parliament actively deciding to reverse the EU withdrawal bill. There are several MPs who would rather leave without a deal than accept any deal that has a hope of being accepted by anyone else; and enough others who don't want to appear before their electors as the MP who ignored their referendum vote.
I think leaving without any deal is the most likely outcome at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by PaulK, posted 12-13-2018 12:17 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2018 10:07 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 352 of 887 (845216)
12-13-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Diomedes
12-13-2018 12:15 PM


Re: No Brexit?
There are only 96 days and 5 hours till the UK leaves the EU. That's not a lot of time for your scenario to take place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Diomedes, posted 12-13-2018 12:15 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by PaulK, posted 12-13-2018 1:03 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 355 by Diomedes, posted 12-13-2018 2:45 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 362 of 887 (845626)
12-18-2018 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by PaulK
12-17-2018 3:30 PM


Re: Even more Brexit shenanigans
If Corbyn has brought a No Confidence vote against the Government, winning would have brought down the government and probably lead to a General Election.
A Parliamentary vote of No Confidence in the Prime Minister, though, is just theatre. It makes a point about just how unpopular May is in Parliament, but that is it.
I'm quite confused by this concept of a non-binding, symbolic vote of no confidence in the PM. Has such a thing ever happened before? Surely, if Parliament votes no confidence in the PM, then the PM must resign. This is the basis of the British constitution, that the Prime Minister must be able to command a majority in the House of Commons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2018 3:30 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:04 AM caffeine has replied
 Message 366 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2018 11:45 AM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 368 of 887 (845655)
12-18-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by ringo
12-18-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Even more Brexit shenanigans
That certainly is not the case in Canada. We have had minority governments fairly often and some people would argue that they are better than majority governments.
A minority government still needs to command a majority in the Commons - it just means that some of that majority are not members of government parties. That is exactly the situation in the UK right now - May's is a minority government; but it can command a majority in Parliament due to the so-called 'confidence and supply' deal with the DUP. The DUP are outside government, but they agreed they would vote with the government on confidence motions and budgets (losing a budget vote is treated as an implied vote of no confidence in the government). We have the same situation here in the Czech Republic, where the government coalition is 8 seats sort of a majority and so struck a deal with the Communists to ensure a majority in the Chamber of Deputies (equivalent of the Commons). I don't think it's different in Canada, I think we're just differing in terminology..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:04 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 369 of 887 (845657)
12-18-2018 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by ringo
12-18-2018 11:59 AM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
Yes, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the PM's own party voting non-confidence. Here, that would not be done in Parliament.
Nor in the UK. The Tory party's no confidence vote was their own thing outside Parliament. Probably done in a smoky room with brandy involved. Internal party matters are their own affair - there are no constitutional or legal constraints on how they pick leaders. It's just the Tory party rules.
What PaulK's talking about is not an internal party thing. The opposition seem to be proposing a formal vote of no confidence in the Commons which would be non-binding and thus not really be a formal no-confidence vote. Sounds like a bunch of fuckwits wanking over a biscuit to me. If they think the government should resign and think they can force it, then they should do so. If they don't, then they should stop pissing about and do something constructive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 1:22 PM caffeine has replied
 Message 371 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2018 1:23 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024