BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

tangled_metal

Rolf F wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Now labour saying they wont vote for a GE until there is a Brexit extension in place. FFS labour..

To be fair, why should Labour give the Liar Johnson what he wants re a GE. He wanted to be PM and he is PM. We have fixed term parliaments. TM over-ruled that to increase her majority and it got us where we are now. It would be a shocking waste of money to have yet another election when the result will be probably another minor party like the DUP extracting another large wad of underserved cash to keep the current bunch of waster incompetents in power.

Or we get another colour of incompetent in power with another party extracting what it can out of them. Corbyn, Labour and the SNP extracting its pound of flesh from the UK anyone? What do they reckon the snp will get out of Scotland at a GE? 54 out of 59 seats in Scotland? Nice little power base for them. Bigger than LibDems for sure.

robert88

Rolf F wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Now labour saying they wont vote for a GE until there is a Brexit extension in place. FFS labour..

To be fair, why should Labour give the Liar Johnson what he wants re a GE. He wanted to be PM and he is PM. ..

And whatever the results of Brexit the Liar Johnson will be in place to receive credit for what he has achieved. It does seem fair.

rolf_f

Hammond says Boris Johnson wrong to claim that progress being made in Brexit talks


Q: Dominic Raab says the Benn bill will undermine the negotiation?

Hammond says it will certainly delay it.

But he says the government is being “disingenuous”. He says “there is no progress”. Boris Johnson was given 30 days by Angela Merkel to come up with a solution to the backstop. Twelve days later nothing has happened.

Q: Johnson says it is the fault of the rebels.

Hammond says Johnson is talking “nonsense”.

He says “no progress is being made” because “the UK government has tabled no proposals”.

He says there are no alternative arrangements for the backstop that would meet the UK’s red lines.

He says he wants to see the UK’s proposals published. He wants to see them submitted to the EU, and he wants to see the EU’s response.

He says there is not even a UK negotiating team.

Donald Tusk wrote:

When the EU agreed to delay the UK's departure until the end of October, Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, said "please don't waste this time".

FFS........

Stevo_666

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

What fkin eejit said Brexit would not have much effect on the EU?

darkhairedlord

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

at least they are taking it seriously.
all we'll get is JSA; if there is anything left in the pot after the farmers, fishermen and DUP bleed it dry.

Pross

Rolf F wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Now labour saying they wont vote for a GE until there is a Brexit extension in place. FFS labour..

To be fair, why should Labour give the Liar Johnson what he wants re a GE. He wanted to be PM and he is PM. We have fixed term parliaments. TM over-ruled that to increase her majority and it got us where we are now. It would be a shocking waste of money to have yet another election when the result will be probably another minor party like the DUP extracting another large wad of underserved cash to keep the current bunch of waster incompetents in power.
No, he needs to be made to sit and stew and if he can't take it he can resign and hand over to a less unworthy successor. Even in the Conservative party it shouldn't be that hard to find someone less crap than Johnson. Someone give May her old job back.......

I find the idea of a GE after 31/10 an odd one. Why would Labour agree to that when we'll probably be out with no deal and their options will be 5 years of a Tory government or taking charge of dealing with any fallout that comes from no deal. If they agree to a GE the only plausible timing would be before Brexit and with prior agreement of a sufficient extension that they can have a go at agreeing a deal of their own with the (unlikely) comfort of a decent majority to get it through parliament. I assume this is Boris calling Corbyn's bluff by saying you've been asking for a GE, we're giving you that chance and you aren't taking it.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So no alternatives on the backstop yet?

That is the UK’s real weakness in its bargaining position.

So that Peter Foster confirms the U.K. strategy is just to run down the and nothing else.

I think you'll find that in this post-truth world it is called the Undemocratic Backstop or at least that what I keep hearing the likes of Raab calling it. I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic but that seems to be the word of the moment for any decision taken that you personally don't like, no matter how much support it gets from others.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

think about what they may be trying to do

TheBigBean

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

darkhairedlord

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

think about what they may be trying to do

they are getting mitigation in place for a trade blockade against the UK. Or punitive tarrifs that amount to much the same.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

Can you explain to me whether the GFA is an agreement that binds future parliaments?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

They've literally voted to give up the representation.

Why are people not up in arms about NATO. In theory the Uk has to declare war on a country because different country has been attacked.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

Can you explain to me whether the GFA is an agreement that binds future parliaments?

Of course it does, but it was done by a vote and the creation of a new parliament. It largely doesn't bind GB who did not participate in the vote. Of course, you can now say that Brexit is an example of it binding GB. To which I would point out that the current mess is precisely why the constitutional principle exists.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

They've literally voted to give up the representation.

Why are people not up in arms about NATO. In theory the Uk has to declare war on a country because different country has been attacked.

The UK can leave NATO. People are happy with the idea that every country in NATO also has to defend the UK.

Pross

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

But if the WA had been voted through including the backstop then surely by definition it becomes democratic as we select a parliament to make such decisions on our behalf? As it happened it didn't get voted through so still democratic. If the government implemented it without a vote in parliament then it wouldn't have been democratic. Arguably democracy is preventing any movement on Brexit in any direction.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

Can you explain to me whether the GFA is an agreement that binds future parliaments?

Of course it does, but it was done by a vote and the creation of a new parliament. It largely doesn't bind GB who did not participate in the vote. Of course, you can now say that Brexit is an example of it binding GB. To which I would point out that the current mess is precisely why the constitutional principle exists.

I really don't know enough about it.

So I assume that leaving with no deal would go against the GFA because that's why the backstop or unspecified alternative is required? What are the real consequences of that for the MPs/government who have voted for Brexit? And if it's legally possible to unilaterally break that agreement, what is the difference between that and breaking the backstop agreement in the future?

surrey_commuter

darkhairedlord wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

think about what they may be trying to do

they are getting mitigation in place for a trade blockade against the UK. Or punitive tarrifs that amount to much the same.

The EU has no money to allocate to any unforseen Brexit costs, it is therefore opening up access to the "Solidarity Fund".

Reallocating funds seems a better idea than the British idea of just borrowing more

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

Can you explain to me whether the GFA is an agreement that binds future parliaments?

Of course it does, but it was done by a vote and the creation of a new parliament. It largely doesn't bind GB who did not participate in the vote. Of course, you can now say that Brexit is an example of it binding GB. To which I would point out that the current mess is precisely why the constitutional principle exists.

I really don't know enough about it.

So I assume that leaving with no deal would go against the GFA because that's why the backstop or unspecified alternative is required? What are the real consequences of that for the MPs/government who have voted for Brexit? And if it's legally possible to unilaterally break that agreement, what is the difference between that and breaking the backstop agreement in the future?

See below, it's not an explicit breach although it is far from perfect. The focus on it is to avoid a return to the conditions that created the problems in the first place.

Some Brexiters would like the UK government to simply state that it reserves the right to terminate the backstop agreement at any time. That may lead to international courts and UK isolation from the rest of the world though if it happened.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption British soldiers on patrol on the Irish border in 1977

There is no explicit commitment to never harden the border, and there is nothing about customs posts or regulatory controls.
What about commitments in the agreement made by the two governments?

The agreement contains a commitment by the British and Irish governments to develop "close cooperation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union" - of course, there was no inkling back in 1998 that the UK would vote to leave the EU 18 years later.

But there are no specific commitments about what that should involve in regard to the border.

The cross-border strand of the agreement lays out 12 areas of cooperation, which are overseen by the North-South Ministerial Council (NSMC).

It could be argued that a hard border would make that strand of the agreement more difficult to operate.

Additionally, a section on economic issues states that, pending devolution, the British government should progress a regional development strategy that tackles "the problems of a divided society and social cohesion in urban, rural and border areas".

It could be argued that a hard border would conflict with the spirit of that part of the agreement but again there is no specific prohibition.

kingstongraham

Thanks.

tailwindhome

The GFA doesn't mention customs and trade borders as the SM/CU predates the GFA by 6 years

The Irish Border issue is solved.
Brexit unsolves it

kingstongraham

The bit about "close cooperation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union" would seem a bit of a struggle not to break if we leave the EU?

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

The bit about "close cooperation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union" would seem a bit of a struggle not to break if we leave the EU?

You would need to consult a lawyer, but usually when that sort of thing comes up, there is some hand waving, talk about the spirit of the agreement and the clause (close cooperation) and that the spirit is not broken. Then I would imagine it would move on to the approval of the Lisbon treaty, agreed by all sides, which allowed an EU exit. You will probably dismiss that as nonsense, but if it is not an explicit term (e.g. The UK will remain a member of the EU), then that's how I would expect it to play out.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't quite worked out why it is undemocratic .

Regulation without representation.

It's quite possibly not in line with the GFA/BA.

It also binds future parliaments which is probably unconstitutional.

All things considered, it's not a great deal.

They've literally voted to give up the representation.

Why are people not up in arms about NATO. In theory the Uk has to declare war on a country because different country has been attacked.

We are not up in arms about NATO?

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

What fkin eejit said Brexit would not have much effect on the EU?

It has been claimed on here a few times, some way up thread as I recall. There has also been the usual stuff about relative impact which we already know about in case we get the usual lecture for the nth time, mentioning no names

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

think about what they may be trying to do

OK, I have. Now what?

tailwindhome

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

The bit about "close cooperation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union" would seem a bit of a struggle not to break if we leave the EU?

You would need to consult a lawyer, but usually when that sort of thing comes up, there is some hand waving, talk about the spirit of the agreement and the clause (close cooperation) and that the spirit is not broken. Then I would imagine it would move on to the approval of the Lisbon treaty, agreed by all sides, which allowed an EU exit. You will probably dismiss that as nonsense, but if it is not an explicit term (e.g. The UK will remain a member of the EU), then that's how I would expect it to play out.

I think this the hand waving bit is that this is in the preamble to the agreement rather than part of the agreement.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

What fkin eejit said Brexit would not have much effect on the EU?

It has been claimed on here a few times, some way up thread as I recall. There has also been the usual stuff about relative impact which we already know about in case we get the usual lecture for the nth time, mentioning no names

Depends which bit of the EU you're talking about, surely. Ireland - lots; Netherlands and Germany - quite a bit; and so on down to Austria - not so much. As SC pointed out it's just a move to allow access to funds that otherwise wouldn't be available.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49553654

Quote:
"EU officials in Brussels have just announced they're debating whether to classify a no-deal Brexit as a "major disaster", so that affected EU countries can legally request compensation funding from the bloc's Solidarity Fund, usually reserved for floods, fires and earthquakes."

So much for Brexit not having much effect on the EU...

think about what they may be trying to do

OK, I have. Now what?

your hatred of the EU blinds you to the clever stuff they do

rjsterry

This suggests that the threatened GE won't solve anything and both Conservatives and Labour will lose seats to the LibDems, SNP and TBP.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/to ... fe05745b9f

Also, Cummings reported in the Telegraph to consider the attempt to get a deal to be a sham.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... considers/

So not unreasonable for the rebels to call Johnson out on it.