Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Old 14th Nov 2018, 08:49
  #221 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 918
" Tower, head separation and bonfire should then be the order of the day! "

I suppose muffled oars are now just a shade passé ........so, "water taxi for one please, pick up at Houses of Parliament going to Traitors gate....soon as you can "...would be the more contemporary option...

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 14th Nov 2018 at 09:03.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:01
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
The big question is really what would happen to the UK if we did try to cancel Brexit somehow?

One thing is absolutely certain; the UK would definitely lose all the hard-won concessions from the EU that it presently enjoys.
I don't see that as "absolutely certain" - it's one view supportred by some learned cousel. There are other learned counsel who take the view that if the UK were to withdraw its Art.50 invokation then our EU membership would continue exactly as it was before, because we never left. This is one of those things we only discover when we try it.

What IS highly probable is that if we were to actually leave next march and then *rejoin* we could not expect to rejoin on the same terms as we have now, which places greater importance on making sure we really mean it before next march IMHO.

Other views are available.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:05
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
The big question is really what would happen to the UK if we did try to cancel Brexit somehow?

One thing is absolutely certain; the UK would definitely lose all the hard-won concessions from the EU that it presently enjoys. We may well be forced to adopt the Euro and to become a Schengen state, as the UK would have zero negotiating points when it comes to the terms of the cancellation of our Article 50 letter.

We may well be in a godawful mess, but would we be in a damned sight worse mess if we tried to call off Brexit at the 11th hour? I very strongly suspect we would.
There's been no suggestion from the Commission or from member states that if we called off Art.50 that would happen, when all said and done, if they can keep the UK in, with it's net contribution, and of course unfettered access to a market of 60m people that would be a preferable outcome for the EU (and I believe, for the UK - though I know not everyone agrees with that standpoint!!).

Where I agree is that if we've left the EU, whether we're in transition or beyond that point, then for the UK to rejoin, the EU would almost certainly play hardball, Euro, Schengen, working time directive, rebate would all be lost and never regained. Given the almost inevitable clamour to rejoin after we've left (another 5-10 years of austerity, low growth and higher unemployment wouldn't wash with the electorate) it it were possible / practical, if might be better to bite the bullet and have that new referendum sooner rather than later - but still, I can't see how there's time for that to happen now, even if the political will were to be there from the top.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:06
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
I don't see that as "absolutely certain" - it's one view supportred by some learned cousel. There are other learned counsel who take the view that if the UK were to withdraw its Art.50 invokation then our EU membership would continue exactly as it was before, because we never left. This is one of those things we only discover when we try it.

What IS highly probable is that if we were to actually leave next march and then *rejoin* we could not expect to rejoin on the same terms as we have now, which places greater importance on making sure we really mean it before next march IMHO.

Other views are available.

PDR
You beat me to it!!
ATNotts is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:08
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
The big question is really what would happen to the UK if we did try to cancel Brexit somehow?

One thing is absolutely certain; the UK would definitely lose all the hard-won concessions from the EU that it presently enjoys. We may well be forced to adopt the Euro and to become a Schengen state, as the UK would have zero negotiating points when it comes to the terms of the cancellation of our Article 50 letter.

We may well be in a godawful mess, but would we be in a damned sight worse mess if we tried to call off Brexit at the 11th hour? I very strongly suspect we would.
None of this is the case. The EU has said repeatedly Art 50 can be annulled & the UK carry on as before with all our opt outs & current favourable terms as the moderating voice keeping a lid, to pick an example at random, the nutty idea of an EU army.

However, as much as I detest the false prospectus that's brought us to this point & the inevitable damage that Brexit will wreak on the UK, a 2nd referendum, people's vote, call it what you want is a difficult prospect. Undermining the first referendum, irrespective of how flawed it was & it appears to have been very manipulated, creates huge problems in political trust & will in my view lead to much more extremism. In the end, you have to deal with how people perceive the world around them & even though it's plainly deleterious to take the path we're on & as painful as it is, this folly has to play out for it to be understood.

And I don't mean that in a condescending manner, fact is most people aren't engaged in the minutiae of politics & won't care to scrutinise the minutes of some bone dry European committee meeting on ad valorem tariffs post Brexit but will hear David Davis spaffing on irrelevantly about cheap BMWs.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:14
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,556
The British people voted for the UK to leave the EU. They did not vote to tag along on a lead at the EU's behest.

Some people cannot get over it and are fighting for the UK to stay in. Of those people a number are politicians who are looking for a Kinnock/Mandy lifestyle after they have been chucked out of Parliament.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:26
  #227 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,922
The EU has said repeatedly Art 50 can be annulled & the UK carry on as before
European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - State of play of Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom

Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?

It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...)596820_EN.pdf

Revocation under Article 50 TEU

Within the EU context, the arguments in favour of revocability of a notification to withdraw from the EU rest primarily on the absence of express wording to the contrary in Article 50 TEU. They also rely on a teleological reading of the Treaty to establish an ‘ever closer union’ There is a further argument that, if the UK changed its mind the notification of the intention to withdraw would no longer satisfy its constitutional requirements under Article 50 (1).

However, the absence of an express provision preventing revocation does not automatically entail that it is indeed possible. Another reading of Article 50 TEU may lead may conclude that there are two options for a withdrawing Member State, which seeks to remain a member: either reapply for membership under Article 49 TEU or request a prolongation of the Article 50 period. Thereby, Article 50 TEU is a complete provision on withdrawal, encapsulating every aspect, which was intended, meaning it is difficult to infer different meanings and interpretations.

A teleological reading does not necessarily mean that the provisions require the CJEU, which would ultimately rule on revocability, to take into account the premise behind the Treaties. As Article 50 TEU is the only clause on withdrawal, it is arguable that is designed to go against the teleological interpretation of the Treaties as a whole, allowing it to fulfil its intended purpose. On the other hand, allowing a Member State to give a notification to only then withdraw it at a later date threatens the creation of a ‘moral hazard’, which would allow Member States to leverage withdrawal from the EU against a measure, which they oppose. This would ultimately threaten the integrity of the EU.

Unilateral Revocation

Apart from the discourse on whether revocation is possible, there is the question of whether a Member State can do so unilaterally in agreement with the remaining Member States. There are arguments, such as those in the ‘Three Knights’ Opinion’, which propose unilateral withdrawal of the notification is indeed possible. Against this, it is argued that the process under Article 50 TEU ceased to be unilateral once notification of the intention to withdraw was made, as it then requires the active involvement of the EU institutions and Member States. If unilateral revocation were possible, it would raise significant legal and political issues, alongside questions as to the legal obligation of sincere cooperation.

Role of the CJEU

Although the CJEU has jurisdiction over the Withdrawal Agreement itself, exercising jurisdiction over a hypothetical act of revocation is complex. This is due to that the notification of revocation is not an EU act, and indeed could even be classed as a political rather than legal act. Although the notification of the intention to withdraw is the beginning of a process, its legal effects are indirect: sending and receiving the letter of notification are not legal acts in themselves. Therefore, it is difficult to determine at which point of the process it can be challenged before the CJEU. However, the question of revocability is ultimately for the CJEU to rule upon, as any alternative acceptance by the Member States alone would constitute a change to the Treaties without following the revision process under Article 48 TEU.

The situation is further complicated if revocation of the notification in made on a unilateral basis by the UK. It may be possible for a Member State or EU institution (under Articles 258 or 259 TFEU) to challenge the revocation on the basis of sincere cooperation under Article 4 (3) TEU, the scope of which is considerable under CJEU jurisprudence. An alternative basis for challenge, and the one which is most often cited, is on the text of Article 50 TEU itself. In the event all EU Member States accepted the revocation, then avenues of judicial control are further limited. The only option would then be for natural or legal persons, without standing before the CJEU, or the European Parliament (if excluded from the process), to challenge the revocation but only after March 2019. This is because ending the withdrawal process before the two-year period under Article 50 TEU would require a legislative act from the European Council, which would then leave it open to challenge under Article 263 TFEU.

It may also be possible for a UK national, or indeed a citizen of any Member State, to challenge the revocation of the notification before their own domestic courts, subject to the domestic standing requirements, which could then request a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 50 TEU from the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU.
ORAC is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:31
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post


European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - State of play of Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom

Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?

It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...)596820_EN.pdf

Revocation under Article 50 TEU
Within the EU context, the arguments in favour of revocability of a notification to withdraw from the EU rest primarily on the absence of express wording to the contrary in Article 50 TEU. They also rely on a teleological reading of the Treaty to establish an ‘ever closer union’ There is a further argument that, if the UK changed its mind the notification of the intention to withdraw would no longer satisfy its constitutional requirements under Article 50 (1).
However, the absence of an express provision preventing revocation does not automatically entail that it is indeed possible. Another reading of Article 50 TEU may lead may conclude that there are two options for a withdrawing Member State, which seeks to remain a member: either reapply for membership under Article 49 TEU or request a prolongation of the Article 50 period. Thereby, Article 50 TEU is a complete provision on withdrawal, encapsulating every aspect, which was intended, meaning it is difficult to infer different meanings and interpretations.
A teleological reading does not necessarily mean that the provisions require the CJEU, which would ultimately rule on revocability, to take into account the premise behind the Treaties. As Article 50 TEU is the only clause on withdrawal, it is arguable that is designed to go against the teleological interpretation of the Treaties as a whole, allowing it to fulfil its intended purpose. On the other hand, allowing a Member State to give a notification to only then withdraw it at a later date threatens the creation of a ‘moral hazard’, which would allow Member States to leverage withdrawal from the EU against a measure, which they oppose. This would ultimately threaten the integrity of the EU.
5
Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________
Unilateral Revocation
Apart from the discourse on whether revocation is possible, there is the question of whether a Member State can do so unilaterally in agreement with the remaining Member States. There are arguments, such as those in the ‘Three Knights’ Opinion’, which propose unilateral withdrawal of the notification is indeed possible. Against this, it is argued that the process under Article 50 TEU ceased to be unilateral once notification of the intention to withdraw was made, as it then requires the active involvement of the EU institutions and Member States. If unilateral revocation were possible, it would raise significant legal and political issues, alongside questions as to the legal obligation of sincere cooperation.
Role of the CJEU
Although the CJEU has jurisdiction over the Withdrawal Agreement itself, exercising jurisdiction over a hypothetical act of revocation is complex. This is due to that the notification of revocation is not an EU act, and indeed could even be classed as a political rather than legal act. Although the notification of the intention to withdraw is the beginning of a process, its legal effects are indirect: sending and receiving the letter of notification are not legal acts in themselves. Therefore, it is difficult to determine at which point of the process it can be challenged before the CJEU. However, the question of revocability is ultimately for the CJEU to rule upon, as any alternative acceptance by the Member States alone would constitute a change to the Treaties without following the revision process under Article 48 TEU.
The situation is further complicated if revocation of the notification in made on a unilateral basis by the UK. It may be possible for a Member State or EU institution (under Articles 258 or 259 TFEU) to challenge the revocation on the basis of sincere cooperation under Article 4 (3) TEU, the scope of which is considerable under CJEU jurisprudence. An alternative basis for challenge, and the one which is most often cited, is on the text of Article 50 TEU itself. In the event all EU Member States accepted the revocation, then avenues of judicial control are further limited. The only option would then be for natural or legal persons, without standing before the CJEU, or the European Parliament (if excluded from the process), to challenge the revocation but only after March 2019. This is because ending the withdrawal process before the two-year period under Article 50 TEU would require a legislative act from the European Council, which would then leave it open to challenge under Article 263 TFEU.
It may also be possible for a UK national, or indeed a citizen of any Member State, to challenge the revocation of the notification before their own domestic courts, subject to the domestic standing requirements, which could then request a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 50 TEU from the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU.
That was exactly my understanding. For our Article 50 notification to leave to be revoked, then all member states would have to agree at the end of the notice period to let us stay; we cannot just revoke it ourselves.

What are the chances of the 27 other member states all agreeing that we can stay in the EU under our present terms and conditions?

In my view, near-zero, as at the very least the EU would want to send a very strong message to one or two other members states that pulling the same sort of stunt will cost them dearly.
VP959 is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:33
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
ORAC

You keep trotting this out, but the person who was involved in drafting Art.50 believes the opposite, and moreover, if 27 EU States were to agree to such a request from the UK, then there's no reason why it could not be revoked. it is in the best interests of the EU (financially and politically) for the UK to remain in the EU.

Since Art.50 has never previously been invoked, let alone retracted I would suggest that anything is possible. But in the time frame of 5 months?? I doubt it.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 10:05
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 315
This argument about whether or not Art.50 can be cancelled misses one significant point.

Now that preparations have been made by both sides for an unsatisfactory exit next March, it would be a simple matter for Barnier to stand in front of a camera and say something like:
"We understand that our friends in Britain are having second thoughts. Please have your second referendum and then come and talk to us about what might be done to resolve this problem that is so bad for both of us."

He hasn't done so. I think we can take it that they are actually glad to be finally rid of their reluctant, awkward member and its troublesome vetos.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 10:21
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
My view is that Theresa needs to go back to Brussels in sackcloth and ashes mode and say simply "please won't you let me stay, I'll do all the washin.."
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 10:30
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
This argument about whether or not Art.50 can be cancelled misses one significant point.

Now that preparations have been made by both sides for an unsatisfactory exit next March, it would be a simple matter for Barnier to stand in front of a camera and say something like:
"We understand that our friends in Britain are having second thoughts. Please have your second referendum and then come and talk to us about what might be done to resolve this problem that is so bad for both of us."

He hasn't done so. I think we can take it that they are actually glad to be finally rid of their reluctant, awkward member and its troublesome vetos.
But on the other hand Both Juncker and Tusk have said consistently that the door is open for the UK to change it's mind and walk back in. At the end of the day Barnier is not all powerful, he takes his instructions from the European Council.

If I were the EU, if the objectives are to get shot of the leader of the awkward squad, and send a clear message to others that deciding to leave has serious consequences I'd let us go. But it's more complicated than that, given the trade and revenue implications. Money talks.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 11:06
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
The last ten opinion polls have shown an average 1.2% lead for The Tories. Given that this represents a swing of just under 3% to Labour there is no reason to think that Corbyn might gain a majority. In fact it s much more likely that both parties might end up in the 270-280 range. Corbyn could of course do a deal with the SNP but I very much doubt the price for that would be one he could afford.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 11:12
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
But on the other hand Both Juncker and Tusk have said consistently that the door is open for the UK to change it's mind and walk back in. At the end of the day Barnier is not all powerful, he takes his instructions from the European Council.
But that has been questioned, and hasn't got through to the UK voter.
A direct invitation to think again would have a significant effect (on both sides in the UK!).

But realistically it's too late now for a change of mind. We either leave with no deal or a very unsatisfactory one.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 11:34
  #235 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,922
George Osborne, now editor of the Evening Standard, and infamous for saying that he would not rest until Theresa May was “chopped up in bags in my freezer”, decided to stick the knife in today - cover of today’s first edition, published just before PM’s Question Time in the HoC...

ORAC is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 12:06
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Parapunter View Post
None of this is the case. The EU has said repeatedly Art 50 can be annulled & the UK carry on as before with all our opt outs & current favourable terms as the moderating voice keeping a lid, to pick an example at random, the nutty idea of an EU army.

Sorry but that is not accurate.
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union’s budget chief Guenther Oettinger said on Friday Britain would lose its rebate even in the “pleasant but improbable” event of it staying in the bloc.

On March 29, Britain is due to become the first country to ever leave the EU. It expects a status-quo transition until the end of 2020 during which it would continue paying contributions to the bloc and follow its rules.

It would in exchange keep access to the bloc’s single market and customs union but no longer have a say in decision-making that would be done by the other 27 states staying in the EU.

After Brexit, the EU wants to wind down in stages all the rebates, including those that the Netherlands or Denmark enjoy. The bloc’s executive European Commission has proposed to have none in the next common budget for 2021-2024.

“I think that even for the pleasant but improbable case that the British wish to remain... then in my budgetary framework I would stick to the phased ending of rebates. The rebates, in a family of 27, are no longer appropriate.”

BAengineer is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 12:06
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,639
In the end, you have to deal with how people perceive the world around them & even though it's plainly deleterious to take the path we're on & as painful as it is, this folly has to play out for it to be understood.
This is also the conclusion I have, sadly, come to. The extremists on both sides of the argument will never be satisfied until it has ben proven. My fear (opinion) is that we will end up with "no deal" and this country will fall into the biggest depression it's ever seen. My hope is that I am wrong and Rees-Mogg etc is spot on and this country will become a much stronger and wealthier nation than any of us could dream of.

If we have another referendum and it goes the other way, the Brexit army will rise again and demand another referendum ad-infinitum.

I speak as somone who voted to remain.

PS Is gold still a good bet to stash my dwindling pension pot? Asking for a friend.
TURIN is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 12:08
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 70
Posts: 558
Geo Osborne is a silly boy who caused a great deal of harm by inflicting austerity plus on large swathes of the UK. Those who mutter about defence, education and healthcare cuts have him to thank.
roving is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 12:14
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
he should have joined the Lib Dems. It would have raised theirs & the Tories IQ's.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 13:05
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 677
It was a good example of political grandstanding to hear Peter Bone proclaiming in parliament that to accept this deal of which nobody knows would be "denying the electorate the Brexit they voted for". I remember the details of that referendum and it merely asked us to vote on whether the UK should leave the EU or to remain within it. There were no conditions, clauses or qualifications etc. It was a straightforward "Leave/Stay".
KelvinD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.