[Oldmanmatt]

Quite honestly, I’m just glad that that hero (The honourable) Pisser  Mudrat, has finally riden to the rescue and asked Sheriff Dumbfuck to take over.

We’re saved!

[seankenny]

I thought this was a very honest thread, can’t have been easy to write:

https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1106228189368631297

[TobyD]

I thought this was a very honest thread, can’t have been easy to write:
https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1106228189368631297

Sadly, the people who really need to compromise even a little bit: the inner circle of the ERG and the DUP, don't show any signs of willingness to think and adapt. It's difficult not to be profoundly cynical about a situation with these groups alongside an opposition whose thought process is confined to trying to pander to a working class who they neither represent or understand. Both sides digging in in their own selfish interest.

[Oldmanmatt]

I am assuming this is similar advice to that which May is hearing, hence her recent statements about “...or not leave at all”?

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/03/19/no-deal-brexit-may-be-unlawful-a-view-from-rose-slowe/

[A Jooser]

I read that blog post from an 'Honorary Research Fellow at University of Bristol Law School, an author on EU law, and a barrister at Foundry Chambers', linked above. I have my doubts about it; I think the author may be mistaken...

Leaving the EU without a deal on 29 March 2019 is not the “legal default”, as has been repeatedly, but wrongly, asserted.

The author talks about the constitutional requirement mentioned in the Article 50 text and then goes on to argue that...

The 137-word EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (‘Notification Act’), enacted in response to Miller, did not satisfy this constitutional requirement as it merely permitted the Government to give notice under Article 50.

Finishing...

In conclusion, if the UK is unable to leave the EU in a constitutionally compliant manner by 29 March 2019, as in by an Act of Parliament, then we cannot lawfully withdraw.

The thing is, no where in that blog post is there any mention of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I'm pretty sure it's this Act of Parliament which sets the 'legal default' date of 29 March 2019 in a constitutionally compliant manner. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted

“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and see subsections (2) to (5));

It is funny how that blog post completely neglects to mention this major piece of Brexit legislation which is a heck of a lot longer than 137 words. Indeed, which would appear to completely contradict the initial premise of the whole piece. Is it possible that even experts can make mistakes?

[TobyD]

It looks like we're probably going to leave on 29th without a deal in either case. I really can't imagine May having the imagination and nous to either come up with a concrete plan for an extension or somehow scrape her deal through. So we'll all be poorer and have fewer holidays through a mixture of small minded populist nationalism, and gross incompetence. The real icing on the cake would be Boris Johnson becoming PM into the bargain.

Unless she goes for the ultimate curve ball and revokes article 50.

[tomtom]

My reading of the runes (and mystic meg is probably about as accurate as anything else in this shit show) is that the EU will force her to change her tack before an extension. gE, referendum, Norway plus etc...

[tommytwotone]

Transcribing a tweet, but from Florain Eder, from Politico Europe:


"Asked what May needs to "have in her bag" when she goes to Brussels to ask for Brexit extra time, Junker (said) that "approval of the negotiated [Withdrawal] Agreement" is the precondition for extension.

[TobyD]

My reading of the runes (and mystic meg is probably about as accurate as anything else in this shit show) is that the EU will force her to change her tack before an extension. gE, referendum, Norway plus etc...

I disagree, I don't think May would agree to change her mind whatever the option. My guess is we're 'out' in a week or so with no deal, no idea, and incompetent blusterers like Grayling to rely on.

[tommytwotone]

So hard to try and predict but - here's my complete guess.


May goes to Brussels and EU offers a short extension contingent on approval of the WA



May brings the deal back for MV3, potentially on 28th or 29th March, effectively putting a gun to moderate Tories / Labour MPs to back it or tacitly plunge the country into No Deal


From there? I have no idea.


I think her maneuvering over the last month or so has been a pretty blatant attempt to shift the responsibility for the outcome away from her and on to parliament as a whole.


After the stink Cameron and co made about Labour "crashing the economy in 2007/08" (the veracity of which is not worth going into here), I get the sense that she realises the impending mess when we do crash out without a deal, and wants to ensure that the blame for that falls as far away from her (and the Tory party) as possible.

[Oldmanmatt]

My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.
The great “save Brexit” thing that happened here, a few months back,was tiny. They tried hard to make it look bigger, by blocking the roads outside the conference centre, creating traffic chaos and then claiming it was a massive number of people trying to watch Farage speak.
Actually, their “stewards”, blockedthe road that runs past the conference centre, diverted the traffic throughthe car park and Farage stood at the car park entrance to be interviewed. The was a massive, national, Brass Band Competition,hosted in the conference centre that day andit houses the main leisure centre and wave pool.
I know the above is true, because I was caught up in it, dropping my youngest off to a pool party.
Infact, and it’s a matter of record, 300 people attended the speech. The hall capacity is around a thousand.

I think we’re all fed up with it. Very few have any illusions left, either way and we’ll end up taking the deal. At which point,the realisation that the negotiations are only just starting, will finally break moral and when the continuing uncertainty bites further into the economy,certain politicians and parties will pay.
I predict the break up of both main parties, or at the very least, internal revolutions and an overthrow of the current structures.

[Will Hunt]

... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.

The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.

It would be interesting to hear more on this. It has certainly had no airing in the press. If it's true then it changes the whole picture, especially since parliament has already declared that it does not want a No Deal scenario.

[A Jooser]

... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.

The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.

It would be interesting to hear more on this. It has certainly had no airing in the press. If it's true then it changes the whole picture, especially since parliament has already declared that it does not want a No Deal scenario.

That's all covered in the text of the Act which I linked a few posts ago. See...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted#section-20-2

(2)In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.

(3)Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).

(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—

(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and

(b)amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.

(5)In subsections (3) and (4) “the Treaties” means the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

So, yes, my understanding is it would be possible for a Minister to change the exit date without going to Parliament but for that to happen someone in Westminster would have to actually make a decision and then be prepared to stick to that decision... precious little chance of that I fear. 

[petekitso]

I was just looking at that. I think subsection (3) is the interesting one though. The right under (4) arises only when the defined 'exit date' is no longer the date on which the Treaties cease to apply in accordance with Art 50.

The date referred to at Art 50 is the date set out in the withdrawal agreement or such later date as the Council and member state unanimously agree.

I think the provision is to allow a minister to make that change once a new date is agreed. It's housekeeping basically.

[seankenny]

My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.

I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/

[petejh]

I was just looking at that. I think subsection (3) is the interesting one though. The right under (4) arises only when the defined 'exit date' is no longer the date on which the Treaties cease to apply in accordance with Art 50.

The date referred to at Art 50 is the date set out in the withdrawal agreement or such later date as the Council and member state unanimously agree.

I think the provision is to allow a minister to make that change once a new date is agreed. It's housekeeping basically.

Waaaiiit a minute... a piece of political text open to interpretation? 

[petejh]

My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.

I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/

All voting for cheaper US chicken no doubt. Fat fuckers.

[seankenny]

My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.

I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/

All voting for cheaper US chicken no doubt. Fat fuckers.

Pete it's heartwarming to see you finally begin to understand that Brexit is going to be damaging to lots and lots of British people.

Now we need to work on that whole "promised extra sovereignty is just an illusion" thing, and you'll be up to speed on this clusterfuck.

[A Jooser]

In reply to petekitso: Quite right, housekeeping. The EU treaties cease to apply two years after the triggering of Article 50 unless an extension is requested (by the UK) and agreed unanimously (by the EU). Both parties presumably would then agree on a new date... 

The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament, but I can't see a point in doing so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!

[Will Hunt]

Hmmm. I don't think that's what it's saying. It's saying that Exit Day means 11pm on 29th March. It then says that if this time is different from the time at which the treaties of the EU cease to apply to us (i.e. I expect this would mean if we negotiate an extension or if for some other reason the EU decide to kick us out before/after the originally set date) then a minister ("by regulations" not sure what that means) can change the date. But they can't exercise that power without the exit day and the end of treaties being different.
So they've built that in to be able to avoid having to change the legislation in Parliament and accidentally falling into No Deal if an extension is agreed at 10:59pm.

Edit: Too slow. What Pete said.

In reply to petekitso: Quite right, housekeeping. The EU treaties cease to apply two years after the triggering of Article 50 unless an extension is requested (by the UK) and agreed unanimously (by the EU). Both parties presumably would then agree on a new date... 

The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament, but I can't see a point in doing so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!

Read the legislation again. A minister can't change the date unilaterally unless for some reason the treaties end at a different time to 11pm 29th March i.e. the EU have agreed to an extension and agreed the date. And then, the minister can only change the date to match that at which the treaties stop. It's just to make sure that the UK's exit time can be aligned with the EU's understanding of the exit time.

[petejh]

My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.

I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/

All voting for cheaper US chicken no doubt. Fat fuckers.

Pete it's heartwarming to see you finally begin to understand that Brexit is going to be damaging to lots and lots of British people.

Now we need to work on that whole "promised extra sovereignty is just an illusion" thing, and you'll be up to speed on this clusterfuck.

Urghh.. you sound like O'Brian from 1984. Do you own a rat?

[Oldmanmatt]

In reply to petekitso: Quite right, housekeeping. The EU treaties cease to apply two years after the triggering of Article 50 unless an extension is requested (by the UK) and agreed unanimously (by the EU). Both parties presumably would then agree on a new date... 

The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament, but I can't see a point in doing so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!

Is this where that obscure legislation, The Acts, Provisions and General What-actual-fuck Law of Unintended Consequences (entacted under the reign of Ug-the-fat, 22400BC and never repealed) comes into play?

[seankenny]

Urghh.. you sound like O'Brian from 1984. Do you own a rat?

Toys back in the pram Pete. This piece in the FT on post-Brexit sovereignty (tl;dr -  ) was paywalled but you can, if you are so inclined, read it here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1PiTy-XgAImUfo.jpg

Just out of interest, do you see Brexit as having any negative effects on you personally? You're quite clear that you know there will be real problems for some people - "that's life" - but do you think any of the shit hitting the fan is going to splatter on you? Genuine question.

[petejh]

Urghh.. you sound like O'Brian from 1984. Do you own a rat?

Toys back in the pram Pete.

Rolls eyes.

[petejh]

Just out of interest, do you see Brexit as having any negative effects on you personally? You're quite clear that you know there will be real problems for some people - "that's life" - but do you think any of the shit hitting the fan is going to splatter on you? Genuine question.

Genuine answer. Not really no.

I have a secure good job, and in each of our quarterly manager's meetings since the referendum the directors have stated our order books are looking good, there is no sign on the ground of any let up in the construction industry, the petrochemical industry, power generation or infrastructure projects in the UK, at least at the level it impacts us. So work-wise no, not for me.

Consumer wise - I expect prices of some goods will rise, certainly in the short term.  Some may fall as traders exploit loopholes. Longer term I expect no difference. Will this negatively affect me? Not particularly. If I can't afford blueberries from Spain as many times per week as I currently can then I'll be OK  I can't think of anything I won't be able to afford post brexit that means so much to me that my life will be significantly worse off by not being to afford it. I'm fortunate that I'm well paid and don't have too many overheads - not the typical but a good position to be in. So consumer wise no.

Travel. I'll be able to take the same trips that I could before we left the EU. It may require a tiny bit of extra paperwork, but nothing that travelling outside the EU doesn't currently. So travel wise no.

Socially - Most EU nationals I know socially are planning to stay. A minority are planning to leave. This *might* be the area I notice most but that isn't really clear yet.

I fully expect you or someone else will come back with points about people less fortunate than me. Can I preempt you by saying you're better off asking them directly how they think their life will be impacted, rather than me. My guess would be that some would answer you that their conditions were pretty shit when we were in the EU, and that they don't think there'll be much change overall.