Bye bye Theresa

[Zonda_]

I wonder if this thread should be renamed Bye Bye Tories...

[GG.]

I don’t get the TV debate at all, what is it going to do at this point beyond give Corbyn a moment to grandstand before going back to doing nothing.

All we’ll get is a debate about a version of Brexit no-one wants vs a Brexit that’s unachievable, that the public currently can’t vote for. So what’s it supposed to achieve? A pointless waste of time for all involved.

Well looks like you're not getting that now either

the BBC called off the proposed Brexit TV debate between Mrs May and Jeremy Corbyn after no agreement on the format could be reached with the relevant parties

[Jimmy Choo]

the BBC called off the proposed Brexit TV debate between Mrs May and Jeremy Corbyn after no agreement on the format could be reached with the relevant parties

I'm spotting a trend here.

[GG.]

Attorney General's Brexit legal advice published here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... reland.pdf

Think it is pretty clear whichever side of the divide you're on that May's Withdrawal Agreement is a massive risk and not the right course for the country.

16. It is difficult to conclude otherwise than that the Protocol is intended to subsist even when negotiations have clearly broken down. The ordinary meaning of the provisions set out above and considered in their context allows no obvious room for the termination of the Protocol, save by the achievement of an agreement fulfilling the same objectives. Therefore, despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangements, in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place, in whole or in part, as set out therein. Further, the Withdrawal Agreement cannot provide a legal means of compelling the EU to conclude such an agreement.

30. In conclusion, the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.

Given the tortuous progress of just negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement and the possibility that negotiations on a trade deal could stall or take many years and the summation in para 30, I don't think any parliamentarian could sensibly vote for this deal. Just like the Euro before it, it could (nay, may be likely) to be the proverbial 'burning building with no exits'.

[JLv3.0]

Oh everyone shush now.

[Jobbo]

Think it is pretty clear whichever side of the divide you're on that May's Withdrawal Agreement is a massive risk and not the right course for the country.

There's nothing new in it. It's more of a concern that it took a vote in Parliament to have it released; the content is no more or less than has already been said about the Withdrawal Agreement.

The concern raised remains that the backstop may last forever. Er, yes - that's what it's for; in the absence of a trade agreement then it could last indefinitely. This was one of the red lines within which negotiation of the withdrawal agreement had to be framed, so it would not differ in any alternative withdrawal agreement (of which there are none anyway). The point is, the withdrawal agreement is not our continuing trade agreement. It is not itself intended to last forever. It will be replaced, but in the absence of that, trade between Ireland and NI must remain unrestricted.

If you wanted to leave, this is what you signed up for.

[GG.]

Massive assumption that it "will be replaced" either at all or by something acceptable to the UK or in a timely fashion that wouldn't leave us in limbo for a protracted period. The A-G's para 30 specifically contemplates that eventuality and that is what this debate is all about. Also preposterous to state "this is what you signed up for". You could perhaps have justified "somthing like this was always likely to happen" but to say I specifically contemplated a backstop that wasn't posed until after the referendum and that I actively signed up for that option just by voting leave is just silly.

So, assuming you exclude any residual possibility of a remain option for the minute, you would be in favour of this deal and would vote for it if you were an MP or would you vote against?

[Jobbo]

The backstop was an inevitable consequence of the border between Ireland and NI - if you didn't think about that before voting, that's down to you and not down to it being brought up solely after the referendum. None of the red lines relate to matters solely arising after the referendum, as well you know.

In the absence of an option to remain, which I accept is a practical impossibility, there are two options: this withdrawal agreement or exiting with no deal. The latter has foreseeable negative consequences, along with unpredictable further consequences. It has no benefits. Obviously I'd go for the withdrawal agreement.

[Jobbo]

I feel I must also refer back to your phrase 'in limbo for a protracted period'. Do you really think No Deal would not do that? We'd be fucked, so perhaps being fucked doesn't constitute being in limbo, but it'd most certainly be a protracted period.

[Simon]

As an original founding member, I feel it's probably be best if we go back to EFTA. The referendum result was too close for what is being proposed.

/Thread. You're welcome.

[NotoriousREV]

I feel I must also refer back to your phrase 'in limbo for a protracted period'. Do you really think No Deal would not do that? We'd be fucked, so perhaps being fucked doesn't constitute being in limbo, but it'd most certainly be a protracted period.

"In limbo" suggests we would be in an undecided or uncertain state. With No Deal we'd definitely have certainty: we'd certainly be fucked.

[NotoriousREV]

As an original founding member, I feel it's probably be best if we go back to EFTA. The referendum result was too close for what is being proposed.

/Thread. You're welcome.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether we can unilaterally withdraw Art50?

[JLv3.0]

I can assure that opinions are not in short supply on this topic.

Facts, less so, but opinions? Fucktons of them.

[duncs500]

Now that we all know what we're voting for, I see no reason not to have another referendum with the options being: No deal remain, this deal, or no deal hard brexit.

Quick vote, no bullshit campaigns or lies.

[GG.]

Now that we all know what we're voting for, I see no reason not to have another referendum with the options being: No deal remain, this deal, or no deal hard brexit.

Quick vote, no bullshit campaigns or lies.

Except of course that splits the leave vote so is inherently biased. The electoral commission have to ensure there is no bias in the question being asked and that formulation definitely would not pass.

I've given some thought to the question and how you would make it fair and think the only realistic option for a 2nd ref (regardless of the merits or point of that given the time remaining before 29 March and the likelihood it would subsequently be challenged if a remain vote won/further fracture the country with re-running the campaign over again) would be a two part question.

1. Remain / Leave.

2. TM Withdrawal Agreement / No deal.

If Remain win you discard question 2. If Leave win you look at the result of question 2. There is the slightly thorny question of Remain preferences being taken into account in 2 even though they vote against leaving. On balance I think that is inevitable as surely if you are a remain voter you still need to assert your preference for the leave deal even though you lost (though many would argue against this i'm sure).

Of course, given that the above is broadly fair to both sides I'm sure there would be vicious lobbying by remain/leave against it...

[Jobbo]

I feel I must also refer back to your phrase 'in limbo for a protracted period'. Do you really think No Deal would not do that? We'd be fucked, so perhaps being fucked doesn't constitute being in limbo, but it'd most certainly be a protracted period.

"In limbo" suggests we would be in an undecided or uncertain state. With No Deal we'd definitely have certainty: we'd certainly be fucked.

It would be a sort of fucked uncertainty, so I'm still not sure whether 'in limbo' might be appropriate.

There's a perceptive comment I've seen that concern about the backstop lasting indefinitely is really a concern that we won't be able to put in place an EU/UK trade deal by 2022 (the intended date to which the Withdrawal Agreement would extend the transition period). And that's a totally valid concern, but if we're incapable of putting in place a trade deal with our biggest trading partner within 3 years, we probably ought not to leave at all.

[duncs500]

Now that we all know what we're voting for, I see no reason not to have another referendum with the options being: No deal remain, this deal, or no deal hard brexit.

Quick vote, no bullshit campaigns or lies.

Except of course that splits the leave vote so is inherently biased. The electoral commission have to ensure there is no bias in the question being asked and that formulation definitely would not pass.

I've given some thought to the question and how you would make it fair and think the only realistic option for a 2nd ref (regardless of the merits or point of that given the time remaining before 29 March and the likelihood it would subsequently be challenged if a remain vote won/further fracture the country with re-running the campaign over again) would be a two part question.

1. Remain / Leave.

2. TM Withdrawal Agreement / No deal.

If Remain win you discard question 2. If Leave win you look at the result of question 2. There is the slightly thorny question of Remain preferences being taken into account in 2 even though they vote against leaving. On balance I think that is inevitable as surely if you are a remain voter you still need to assert your preference for the leave deal even though you lost (though many would argue against this i'm sure).

Of course, given that the above is broadly fair to both sides I'm sure there would be vicious lobbying by remain/leave against it...

Yeah, I think that's fair enough. I hadn't really thought of the mechanics of it.

[Orange Cola]

The general thinking from some folk who apparently know this shit reckon the shortest time it would take to jump through the referendum hoops is 22 weeks. Which takes us well past March.

We’re certainly in interesting times!

[Zonda_]

The general thinking from some folk who apparently know this shit reckon the shortest time it would take to jump through the referendum hoops is 22 weeks. Which takes us well past March.

We’re certainly in interesting times!

But how long to revoke Article 50?

[Orange Cola]

Pretty much immediately, we haven’t actually changed anything.