Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, SasaS said:

And if extension isn't granted, before Article 50 is revoked, someone might suggest they try another vote on the already negotiated deal.

It has already been roundly rejected twice. So I feel like that won't fly. 

[Anny Road]

Best thing is we haven’t even started yet. We are still sleeping on the couch and googling divorce solicitors just in case.

[Mudface]

Just now, Hank Moody said:

It has already been roundly rejected twice. So I feel like that won't fly. 

It's May though, I wouldn't put it past her to try and sneak it through again. Appeal to her remain faction to vote it through as it'll be no deal otherwise, and to her ERG loons that unless it goes through, there's no Brexit.

[Pureblood]

31 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

But if parliament votes to reject no deal, and there’s no extension, we would have to withdraw article 50? 

 

I genuinelu dont kniw the answer to that. Maybe @Strontium Dog knows?

The terms of Article 50 are robust and clear.  No withdrawal agreement and you leave after two years.  By invoking Article 50, Theresa May started the clock for the two year time period referred to in paragraph 3.  Article 50 does not concern itself with the Parliamentary or constitutional procedure of member states.  This is an EU matter so the ultimate authority is Article 50.  It does not matter if Parliament rejects no deal, that has no bearing on how matters proceed pursuant to Article 50.

 

The only options we have are to unilaterally revoke Article 50 or go cap in hand begging for as long as an extension as the EU will allow.  There is no way May will revoke Article 50, the Daily Mail simply won't allow it.  So we will have to beg for a long extension in order to sort all the mess out.

 

This has all been done in a topsy turvy manner.  All of her "red lines" garbage needed to be resolved before Article 50 was invoked.  That's what Donald Tusk was getting at when he tweeted about a special place in hell for starting this procedure off without a clear plan.

[No2]

23 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Needs to be done in line with our parliamentary procedures, that was the judgement from that court case. There's no need for a referendum, especially since the Gina Miller case said that it's an advisory instrument only.

It was triggered by May alone, can it be revoked by her? The reason I ask is i can't see a vote for it's withdrawal passing.

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, Mudface said:

It's May though, I wouldn't put it past her to try and sneak it through again. Appeal to her remain faction to vote it through as it'll be no deal otherwise, and to her ERG loons that unless it goes through, there's no Brexit.

 

Someone already said in the coverage yesterday May's deal would probably go through if voting was anonymous.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Mudface said:

It's May though, I wouldn't put it past her to try and sneak it through again. Appeal to her remain faction to vote it through as it'll be no deal otherwise, and to her ERG loons that unless it goes through, there's no Brexit.

I guess it's possible, but so pointless. She is, after all, a complete fucking cunt who is putting herself before the country. I think we are going to the EU, asking for an extension. I think we need a good reason to ask for it though, why would they say 'yeah, drag it out more and ask for the same thing again'. It's pointless.  

[Jairzinho]

What's the point in the vote for taking "no deal" off the table?

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

The terms of Article 50 are robust and clear.  No withdrawal agreement and you leave after two years.  By invoking Article 50, Theresa May started the clock for the two year time period referred to in paragraph 3.  Article 50 does not concern itself with the Parliamentary or constitutional procedure of member states.  This is an EU matter so the ultimate authority is Article 50.  It does not matter if Parliament rejects no deal, that has no bearing on how matters proceed pursuant to Article 50.

 

The only options we have are to unilaterally revoke Article 50 or go cap in hand begging for as long as an extension as the EU will allow.  There is no way May will revoke Article 50, the Daily Mail simply won't allow it.  So we will have to beg for a long extension in order to sort all the mess out.

 

I understand all of this, TK. Perhaps I've not articulated myself, as you're the second person to recant the basics to me. I'm saying, if the extension is rejected by the EU, AND Parliament votes against No Deal, then - regardless of Article 50 being clear - the government are then bound to listen to Parliament's vote on No Deal, which then leaves one of two possibilities as I see it. First, the government revoke Article 50. Second, try again to get an extension with a different reason (for example, time for a second referendum). Or, of course, ignore parliament and go out by default. 

[clangers]

10 minutes ago, Mudface said:

It's May though, I wouldn't put it past her to try and sneak it through again. Appeal to her remain faction to vote it through as it'll be no deal otherwise, and to her ERG loons that unless it goes through, there's no Brexit.

She definitely will put it back to parliament, it'll be before the EU grant an extension, on the assumption they do. Speculation appears to be as soon as next Monday.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

What's the point in the vote for taking "no deal" off the table?

It will, surely, instruct government on what to do. It doesn't impact Article 50, of course (which some people seem to think is what I was suggesting) but it should surely instruct government, otherwise there would be no point in wasting the paper. 

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

I guess it's possible, but so pointless. She is, after all, a complete fucking cunt who is putting herself before the country. I think we are going to the EU, asking for an extension. I think we need a good reason to ask for it though, why would they say 'yeah, drag it out more and ask for the same thing again'. It's pointless.  

The thing is, so far, everyone has been largely irresponsible, it was all just domestic politics, JRM et al want to replace May, May wants to stay and keep her party together, Corbyn just wants GE and show the government is incompetent, DUP wants to shout never never never. When hard Brexiters are actually faced with no Brexit or soft remainers with no deal, they might change their position.

[Anny Road]

We should just except an open UK / EU border in Ireland. The place would boom. It would be like Hong Kong in a decade.

[Mudface]

Just now, clangers said:

She definitely will put it back to parliament, it'll be before the EU grant an extension, on the assumption they do. Speculation appears to be as soon as next Monday.

The turd that will never flush.

[Pureblood]

1 minute ago, Hank Moody said:

I understand all of this, TK. Perhaps I've not articulated myself, as you're the second person to recant the basics to me. I'm saying, if the extension is rejected by the EU, AND Parliament votes against No Deal, then - regardless of Article 50 being clear - the government are then bound to listen to Parliament's vote on No Deal, which then leaves one of two possibilities as I see it. First, the government revoke Article 50. Second, try again to get an extension with a different reason (for example, time for a second referendum). Or, of course, ignore parliament and go out by default. 

If the EU reject the extension we leave this month, come what May.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

If the EU reject the extension we leave this month, come what May.  

Yeah, I disagree with that. I think May, having been instructed by Parliament, revokes Article 50, or gets an extension with the understanding that there's a referendum. 

[clangers]

4 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

It will, surely, instruct government on what to do. It doesn't impact Article 50, of course (which some people seem to think is what I was suggesting) but it should surely instruct government, otherwise there would be no point in wasting the paper. 

In fairness we've already had a non-binding vote against no-deal but as you say it's a political instrument. Wouldn't be surprised if the EU come back and agree to an extension but only if it's for two years.

[Pureblood]

2 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

Yeah, I disagree with that. I think May, having been instructed by Parliament, revokes Article 50. 

There will be no appetite for revoking Article 50.  I don't see it as an option.  

 

You're contradicting yourself now. "If they reject an extension, but we get an extension".  

[SasaS]

If voting not to leave with no deal isn't meaningless, then there is no reason for the EU to grant a short extension, the alternatives are win-win for the EU, UK staying or May's deal which is already acceptable to them.  

[Mudface]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

The thing is, so far, everyone has been largely irresponsible, it was all just domestic politics, JRM et al want to replace May, May wants to stay and keep her party together, Corbyn just wants GE and show the government is incompetent, DUP wants to shout never never never. When hard Brexiters are actually faced with no Brexit or soft remainers with no deal, they might change their position.

True, but the instigator of all this is May herself. She could have tried to build a cross party consensus on what Brexit actually meant, have it planned out and then invoke Article 50 and proceed in an orderly fashion. Doing that she could have bypassed the ERG and got Labour on side.

 

But she decided to play to the gallery and be 'strong and stable', called a snap election to try and 'crush the saboteurs' which she completely fucked up, then excluded everyone to the point where successive Brexit secretaries were resigning because they couldn't go along with her plans. She hasn't managed to bring her own cabinet together, never mind her party, the House or the country because she is an incompetent, weird autocrat with no capacity for compromise- exactly the sort of person you don't want negotiating something as complicated as this against an entity like the EU who hold all the cards. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

There will be no appetite for revoking Article 50.  I don't see it as an option.  

 

You're contradicting yourself now. "If they reject an extension, but we get an extension".  

No, they can reject an extension for us to renegotiate and then we have the option to get an extension for something they do agree to, like a referendum. We can ask for an extension multiple times. 

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

No, they can reject an extension for us to renegotiate and then we have the option to get an extension for something they do agree to, like a referendum. We can ask for an extension multiple times. 

The problem with that is that the clock is ticking and we only have a couple of weeks left.  

[SasaS]

8 minutes ago, Mudface said:

True, but the instigator of all this is May herself. She could have tried to build a cross party consensus on what Brexit actually meant, have it planned out and then invoke Article 50 and proceed in an orderly fashion. Doing that she could have bypassed the ERG and got Labour on side.

 

But she decided to play to the gallery and be 'strong and stable', called a snap election to try and 'crush the saboteurs' which she completely fucked up, then excluded everyone to the point where successive Brexit secretaries were resigning because they couldn't go along with her plans. She hasn't managed to bring her own cabinet together, never mind her party, the House or the country because she is an incompetent, weird autocrat with no capacity for compromise- exactly the sort of person you don't want negotiating something as complicated as this against an entity like the EU who hold all the cards. 

 

I can only agree with that. I said after the first vote she should resign and there should be a snap election. But she seems to be a great believer in the attrition approach. If she gets her deal eventually, and I think this is still a realistic possibility because it's essentially a semi hard Brexit with a backstop, she may be proven right. In that the approach ultimately worked.

Or she may go down in history as the woman who broke Britain.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

13 minutes ago, TK421 said:

The problem with that is that the clock is ticking and we only have a couple of weeks left.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, TK421 said:

The problem with that is that the clock is ticking and we only have a couple of weeks left.  

Indeed. That's why I think article 50 revocation might be the only option if they don't extend. I think they will need to accept the extension. Here's how I think it will play out, with possibilities added for the shit that's hard to judge.

 

Step 1: May's deal vote - Rejected

Step 2: No deal vote - likely to be rejected.

Step 3: Vote on Extension - likely to pass

Step 4: Come up with a reason for an extension - unknown if they'll agree or how long it will be.

 - Option 1: They agree to an extension to try to get another May deal. Waste of time, go back to step 3. 

 - Option 2: They reject an extension for this and we either

    - a) Revoke A50 (possible) 

    - b) Ignore Parliament and leave with a no deal (unlikely)

    - c) Go back for another crack at an extension for something like a referendum (possible)

 

That's the way I see it. I think we will either end up with a referendum or another crack at May's deal.