BREXIT
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
I would suggest the chances of at least one member vetoing any further extension are now greater than 50%.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-britain-to-go
Bettel's anger highlights a bleak truth: the EU27 just wants Britain to go
......And as Bettel’s exasperation made clear, officials in Brussels, and leaders in national capitals, are running out of patience. Hopes that Britain might eventually give Brexit up as a bad job and remain in the EU are giving way to prayers that it won’t.
Many now dread the prospect, remote as it may seem, of a second referendum. “Why on earth would you want a country so bitterly and hopelessly divided to stay?” asked one diplomat. “The wounds are going to last generations. How damaging would that be to Europe? Come back, maybe – but leave and sort things out first.”
The EU27 members do not trust Johnson, but many have little confidence in Jeremy Corbyn or in the quarrelsome tribes of remainers either. Certainly, they would rather have a deal: no one wants the chaos and economic pain of no deal, or to be seen to be giving Britain a helping hand over the cliff.
But that deal clearly cannot come at any cost. Twenty-six member states will, first, never abandon Ireland when it insists on the need for an operable backstop because, despite the clout of Germany and France, the EU remains a club of small countries, most with populations smaller than 10 million.
Equally important, the European priority remains – as it has since June 2016 – the integrity of the EU single market. EU businesses are lobbying their governments, but not in order to persuade them to offer the UK a favourable deal so that sales of BMW cars and prosecco are not hit too hard.
No, European businesses want their governments to avoid any risk of British companies retaining privileged access to the single market while undercutting them by disobeying its rules: a weakened single market is a far more damaging prospect than even a no-deal Brexit.
For all those reasons, the EU would, on the whole, prefer Britain to leave now, if possible quite soon. And as Bettel’s irritation showed, it is fast tiring of a psychodrama that is costing it time, money and anxiety, and that is none of its making.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-britain-to-go
Bettel's anger highlights a bleak truth: the EU27 just wants Britain to go
......And as Bettel’s exasperation made clear, officials in Brussels, and leaders in national capitals, are running out of patience. Hopes that Britain might eventually give Brexit up as a bad job and remain in the EU are giving way to prayers that it won’t.
Many now dread the prospect, remote as it may seem, of a second referendum. “Why on earth would you want a country so bitterly and hopelessly divided to stay?” asked one diplomat. “The wounds are going to last generations. How damaging would that be to Europe? Come back, maybe – but leave and sort things out first.”
The EU27 members do not trust Johnson, but many have little confidence in Jeremy Corbyn or in the quarrelsome tribes of remainers either. Certainly, they would rather have a deal: no one wants the chaos and economic pain of no deal, or to be seen to be giving Britain a helping hand over the cliff.
But that deal clearly cannot come at any cost. Twenty-six member states will, first, never abandon Ireland when it insists on the need for an operable backstop because, despite the clout of Germany and France, the EU remains a club of small countries, most with populations smaller than 10 million.
Equally important, the European priority remains – as it has since June 2016 – the integrity of the EU single market. EU businesses are lobbying their governments, but not in order to persuade them to offer the UK a favourable deal so that sales of BMW cars and prosecco are not hit too hard.
No, European businesses want their governments to avoid any risk of British companies retaining privileged access to the single market while undercutting them by disobeying its rules: a weakened single market is a far more damaging prospect than even a no-deal Brexit.
For all those reasons, the EU would, on the whole, prefer Britain to leave now, if possible quite soon. And as Bettel’s irritation showed, it is fast tiring of a psychodrama that is costing it time, money and anxiety, and that is none of its making.
Last edited by ORAC; 17th Sep 2019 at 08:07.
Tabs please !
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 710
Originally Posted by wiggy
Seconded..I mean it's not as if much of significance happened yesterday or will happen today...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by B Fraser
forgive me for injecting some fun into such a tedious discussion
you have merely selectively and willfully misinterpreted legislation a la Daily Mail, ignoring reasonable counter arguments that get in the way of your blind conviction. Frankly the news stands are full of this disengenuous trash, driven by a handful of rich proprietors selling their propaganda to a strangely willing public.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
So now the EU are resorting to playground language and tactics too. Great. All this talk about an agreement which wasn't agreed by parliament, so it's a rejected proposal and there is no agreement. UK is making a mistake in always going to them. Given the facts, invite the EU to address the reluctant parliament to see if they can sell the ' agreement' to the House.
Although with a more adult approach and less megaphone sloganeering. There could be a sensible deal in place long ago.
Too late, all too late.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,686
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt
The good news is, when the UK is freed from the EU shackles, employers will be able to offer as many days off as they see fit.
EG. The baseline of eight 8hr statutary holidays equates to 64hrs. Which is fine if you work an 8hr shift. If you work 10hr or 12hr shifts then you lose a significant number of statutary days off. Some think this is fair. Personally, I don't. A day is a day, regardless of the hours you work.
This is of course, at the moment, perfectly legal and complies with UK and EU law. I can imagine, when/if we leave the EU then employers will have carte blanche to alter their T & Cs as they wish, as I'm damn sure the likes of Rees-Mogg will be at the forefront of demanding an end to current EU/UK law on the number of annual leave days.
Last edited by TURIN; 17th Sep 2019 at 10:13. Reason: missed a 't'
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
The facts are that there are two parties in the negotiations. The U.K. was, and is, represented by the Government. They came to an agreement with the EU. The fact that the Government could not get that deal accepted in Parliament is not the EU’s fault.
You can blame the EU or the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SNP or whoever you want if it makes you feel better. It does not change the fact that the Conservative party instigated Brexit. They decided that they alone should negotiate, even though the ramifications of Brexit are so great that common sense dictated a more conciliatory and inclusive approach was required.
You can blame the EU or the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SNP or whoever you want if it makes you feel better. It does not change the fact that the Conservative party instigated Brexit. They decided that they alone should negotiate, even though the ramifications of Brexit are so great that common sense dictated a more conciliatory and inclusive approach was required.
To be fair to Labour/Lib-Dems, it was Teresa May (a remain advocate) who wasted two years of non-negotiation before coming back with an agreement that left us in the same position of EU control of our laws and trade arrangements as before, but with no future say on changes. No wonder it was rejected.
And now we have the orchestrated playground farce in Luxembourg.
It does take two parties to negotiate, but when one refuses to abide by the provisions of the relevant Article 50 (which requires the EU to discuss future trade arrangements as past of the negotiation) and the other apparently has no interest in a solution acceptable either to Parliament or the voters of the UK , its hardly surprising we are in the present position.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,517
Originally Posted by TURIN
A very large British airline has, quite recently, introduced a new contract for all new starters that significantly reduces the number of annual leave days, AND more importantly, has mandated that time off in lieu of bank holidays be calculated in hours instead of days.
EG. The baseline of eight 8hr statutary holidays equates to 64hrs. Which is fine if you work an 8hr shift. If you work 10hr or 12hr shifts then you lose a significant number of statutary days off. Some think this is fair. Personally, I don't. A day is a day, regardless of the hours you work.
This is of course, at the moment, perfectly legal and complies with UK and EU law. I can imagine, when/if we leave the EU then employers will have carte blanche to alter their T & Cs as they wish, as I'm damn sure the likes of Rees-Mogg will be at the forefront of demanding an end to current EU/UK law on the number of annual leave days.
EG. The baseline of eight 8hr statutary holidays equates to 64hrs. Which is fine if you work an 8hr shift. If you work 10hr or 12hr shifts then you lose a significant number of statutary days off. Some think this is fair. Personally, I don't. A day is a day, regardless of the hours you work.
This is of course, at the moment, perfectly legal and complies with UK and EU law. I can imagine, when/if we leave the EU then employers will have carte blanche to alter their T & Cs as they wish, as I'm damn sure the likes of Rees-Mogg will be at the forefront of demanding an end to current EU/UK law on the number of annual leave days.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,666
As 31st October approaches, with Johnson continuing to peddle the line that a deal can be done, but only in the EU does as it's told, and the EU becomes ever more exasperated with the whole Brexit farce the oppoisition to a no deal Brexit and / or Brexit as a whole has to make some hard decisions.
In the event that the government finds a way of circumventing the rebels law that stops a no deal Brexit then they only have one way out, that's calling a vote of no confidence in the current government and then, having won it, putting in place a caretaker government that will deliver the request to delay Art.50 yet again. If they fail to agree on who should lead that caretaker government, they hand the ball back to Johnson, who can then call an election when he wants, and take the UK out, without a deal on 31st October.
This begs the question - which is the lesser of two evils? Leave the EU without a deal, or potentially allow Corbyn to take control, albeit temporarily, to apply for the extension. Given that a no deal exit (any exit actually) is in the short to medium term irreversible, whereas Corbyn could be kicked out at anytime via a no confidence vote if he went off piste, and in any event he'd be up for reelection in 2022 I think I'd reluctantly go for the Corbyn option. Unfortunately the LibDems appear to have painted themselves into a corner in saying they won't work with either Corbyn or Johnson, for Jo Swinson to go back on that would be difficult; and it's by no means certain whether the ex-Tory rebels would agree that Corbyn as caretaker PM is a lesser evil than a no deal Brexit.
Upshot is that there is a grave possibility that the rebel coalition could fall apart over Corbyn and Johnson / Cummings getting the no deal Brexit they so desire. Hope I'm wrong.
In the event that the government finds a way of circumventing the rebels law that stops a no deal Brexit then they only have one way out, that's calling a vote of no confidence in the current government and then, having won it, putting in place a caretaker government that will deliver the request to delay Art.50 yet again. If they fail to agree on who should lead that caretaker government, they hand the ball back to Johnson, who can then call an election when he wants, and take the UK out, without a deal on 31st October.
This begs the question - which is the lesser of two evils? Leave the EU without a deal, or potentially allow Corbyn to take control, albeit temporarily, to apply for the extension. Given that a no deal exit (any exit actually) is in the short to medium term irreversible, whereas Corbyn could be kicked out at anytime via a no confidence vote if he went off piste, and in any event he'd be up for reelection in 2022 I think I'd reluctantly go for the Corbyn option. Unfortunately the LibDems appear to have painted themselves into a corner in saying they won't work with either Corbyn or Johnson, for Jo Swinson to go back on that would be difficult; and it's by no means certain whether the ex-Tory rebels would agree that Corbyn as caretaker PM is a lesser evil than a no deal Brexit.
Upshot is that there is a grave possibility that the rebel coalition could fall apart over Corbyn and Johnson / Cummings getting the no deal Brexit they so desire. Hope I'm wrong.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
In the event that the government finds a way of circumventing the rebels law that stops a no deal Brexit then they only have one way out, that's calling a vote of no confidence in the current government and then, having won it, putting in place a caretaker government
See the terms in the first first link below, and then the second link, section 3 paragraphs 24-35.
Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../1813/1813.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by ORAC
Be careful in your assumptions. Under the terms of the FTPA there is no requirements for the Prime Minister to stand down. Indeed the Act is deliberately vague on what takes place after an initial vote of no-confidence and the next 14 days.
See the terms in the first first link below, and then the second link, section 3 paragraphs 24-35.
Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../1813/1813.pdf
Whatever, as I said, the rebels totally lose control of the situation, if indeed they ever gained it.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 6,043
Originally Posted by ORAC
But that deal clearly cannot come at any cost. Twenty-six member states will, first, never abandon Ireland when it insists on the need for an operable backstop because, despite the clout of Germany and France, the EU remains a club of small countries, most with populations smaller than 10 million.
In Ireland when Boris visited and point made to me was if an Irish PM turned up with a UK PM in the way Boris did, barely dressed, dishevelled and looking like he had been dragged through a hedge backwards then UK red tops would be crowing about drunkeness etc. Fact was Leo (whom they detested) showed up Boris as the bumbling incompetent fool who could provide no specifics just bumble along.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,653
Why have Michel Barnier and his masters never been taken to task over the disappearance of the "nothing is agreed until it is all agreed" mantra?
2. Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately.
How did the above mentioned "single package" get split into the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration without major outbursts and gnashing of teeth in Parliarment (I think that's the correct spelling BTW)?
After watching the clip posted by ORAC I must admit I find it hard to believe that:
a) There was no room big enough for a press conference in the offices of the Luxembourg Prime Minister
b) That Mr Johnson and his management team didn't see the wide open goal they gave the Xavier Bettel by declining to stand by the podium and let the world see how pathetic the protesters were.
2. Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately.
How did the above mentioned "single package" get split into the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration without major outbursts and gnashing of teeth in Parliarment (I think that's the correct spelling BTW)?
After watching the clip posted by ORAC I must admit I find it hard to believe that:
a) There was no room big enough for a press conference in the offices of the Luxembourg Prime Minister
b) That Mr Johnson and his management team didn't see the wide open goal they gave the Xavier Bettel by declining to stand by the podium and let the world see how pathetic the protesters were.
Last edited by LowNSlow; 17th Sep 2019 at 12:45.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 115
The Electoral Commission has found that two Remain campaigns that were set up less than a month before the referendum campaign worked together, breaking electoral law.
Wake Up And Vote (WUAV) and DDB were just two of five campaigns that were all set up less than a month before the referendum, sharing big donors, and in total funnelling more than a million pounds into the Remain cause. The others seem to have avoided proper scrutiny…
WUAV and DDB created unbranded
that was conveniently shared by the official Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, as if it was their content. DDB has been fined just £1,800 for failing to declare joint spending with Wake Up And Vote. This follows a £1,000 fine handed to DDB in March 2018 for other inaccuracies in its spending return…
Well for those who have continually gone on and on about various vote leave groups being found guilty of funding, it seems you are just as guilty.
This is from Guido today via Twitter.
“We found that the ‘5 seconds campaign’ was a joint campaign run by WUAV and DDB UK Limited. Spending on the campaign was ‘joint’ or ‘common plan’ spending.”
WUAV and DDB created unbranded
Well for those who have continually gone on and on about various vote leave groups being found guilty of funding, it seems you are just as guilty.
This is from Guido today via Twitter.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 54
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by LowNSlow
Why have Michel Barnier and his masters never been taken to task over the disappearance of the "nothing is agreed until it is all agreed" mantra?
2. Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately.
How did the above mentioned "single package" get split into the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration without major outbursts and gnashing of teeth in Parliarment (I think that's the correct spelling BTW)?
2. Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately.
How did the above mentioned "single package" get split into the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration without major outbursts and gnashing of teeth in Parliarment (I think that's the correct spelling BTW)?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 30
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Fitter2
Unfortunately, the EU refused to discuss any future trade - not just banana regulation (contrary to the requirement of Article 50).
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
