OV9

I still have 500 pages left to read...

Clearly no deal is not an outcome that anyone (sane) actually wants but the question is, is it (or more likely no-deal/transition plus necessary mini-deals to smooth the exit from the single market/customs union) better than Theresa's deal with an open ended backstop with no ability to leave if we can't agree a satisfactory deal with the EU (save for the EU no longer negotiating in good faith). Personally I think it is finely balanced between the two.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:56 am Is a no deal exit really something anyone wants? Even the most hardline brexiter must know that it would be an absolute disaster not just for our international standing but for the country itself.

Interesting how so many people view that it would be a disaster. I remember reading back in 2016 Varoufakis saying that the EU won't negotiate, they adopt a position and expect everyone to fall in line, so actually the best approach to get what you want is to No Deal and then start negotiations about any new relationship after the event. The events of the last 2 years have only served to demonstrate what he said about negotiating with the EU

Before anyone launches in at me I'm not offering an opinion there, by the way, merely stating something said by someone who might know a thing or two more than most of us.

On a practical level we're in no way ready for a no deal brexit. I work with international shipping, HMRC has already been in complete meltdown with Imports for most of the year and whenever we talk with Royal Mail or the other shipping companies we deal with they're all trying to prepare for the worst but we ultimately don't know what we're dealing with.

If we end up going out without the customs union or something similar already in place we're fucked.

I can't help but think we're out of time to be properly prepared.

And the blame lies squarely on Theresa May for that. The problem there is that, exactly like David Cameron, she simply could not see that anything other than an outcome favourable to or preferred by her would prevail. So much for that being the preserve of Old Etonians.

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:50 am

Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:02 am Feels like ages since this thread.

So the options are:
1. No deal (not an option constitutionally since it would break the Good Friday Agreement to have a hard border with Ireland)
2. This deal (awful)
3. Don't leave

Anyone got a preference between the latter two which are the only possible options?

I like how you've come to the conclusion that 2 and 3 are the only two options when 1 happens by default in the absence of option 2 or another negotiated deal and there is no real way to deliver 3 in the time available before March (given you'd need a second referendum and then only be allowed to revoke article 50 with the express consent of the other EU member states).

Even the Leave supporters aren't in favour of No Deal. But more importantly, if we ended up in that situation it wouldn't be by choice, and it would cause a constitutional crisis greater than we're currently seeing due to the automatic requirement to impose border restrictions between NI and Ireland, which directly contradicts the Good Friday Agreement. So option 1 isn't an option because (a) it would not be an active decision to go that route, and (b) it would have dire consequences for the UK as an entity.

As for option 3, it doesn't require a referendum (you must have studied constitutional law - Parliament can decide to revoke the Art.50 notice). And there is nothing in Art.50 which states that it cannot be withdrawn or that it can be, but only with consent of the other EU member states. There is a case which will be heard before the ECJ this month to get a ruling on this very point: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-45760209

But given that you are a Leave supporter and on the assumption that the ECJ decides we can't withdraw our Art.50 notice, which of option 1 and option 2 do you prefer?

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:34 am And the blame lies squarely on Theresa May for that and everyone who voted leave expecting our corrupt and useless politicians to be able to deliver anything of any value or benefit to the British population

EFA

@ Jobbo: I'm not arguing with what your saying about no deal and border restrictions, etc. but it is still "an option" in the broader sense of the word, i.e. it is an eventuality that can happen, or maybe, is even the most likely option at least at this current point in time.

I know parliament can revoke article 50 as prior parliaments cannot fetter the current one but that is no different to parliament voting to breach any other treaty obligation of international law (subject to the outcome of the ECJ case you mention). It isn't solely a UK constitutional law question.

I didn't see that there was an ECJ case ongoing on this point. It is very interesting but do you seriously think that the ECJ is going to establish legal precedent for a member state being able to submit an Art. 50 notice and then whip it back out again at the last minute (precipitating the negotiation that we've had for the past two years in the meantime)? I just think that's never going to be where they come out in their judgment.

As for Art 50 not saying it cannot be withdrawn - it doesn't need to - it simply says, if you invoke then you leave after a specified period. If it doesn't provide for you to withdraw then that could only be down to agreement between the two counterparties and the decision making body for the EU's consent is the EU27. In theory the ECJ could "purposively" interpret the words otherwise... but as noted, they have zero political rationale for doing so.

As for option 1 and 2, I've said it is finely balanced, though so dangerous is the idea that you'd submit to a backstop with no ability to exit I think, probably, begrudgingly, it has to be 1 and we have to work through it. Ideally we'd ask for an extension to Article 50 (which would also be subject to the EU27's consent but in theory easier to get them to agree to) and start proper planning for no deal. That may also be in the EU's interests.

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:34 am And the blame lies squarely on Theresa May for that. The problem there is that, exactly like David Cameron, she simply could not see that anything other than an outcome favourable to or preferred by her would prevail. So much for that being the preserve of Old Etonians.

Well I know I'll feel better now that I have someone to blame as we're watching our company go down because we can't get anything into or out of the country .

We should have put bets on the likelihood of her ending up being more unpopular than Maggie Thatcher. I think she's probably a shoo-in now. Hated by Conservatives and Labour equally...

There’s no winners in this shit show - we all knew that in June 2016.

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:11 pm There’s no winners in this shit show - we all knew that in June 2016.

Indeed. So you're going to sit and let it play out in the worst way possible?

Not sure why there are so many suggestions of a Tory leadership challenge or a general election. Who on earth wants to take over from Theresa May and deal with this

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:52 am I didn't see that there was an ECJ case ongoing on this point. It is very interesting but do you seriously think that the ECJ is going to establish legal precedent for a member state being able to submit an Art. 50 notice and then whip it back out again at the last minute (precipitating the negotiation that we've had for the past two years in the meantime)? I just think that's never going to be where they come out in their judgment.

They've already said they wouldn't allow it to be used as a negotiation tactic, but nowhere in the treaties is there stated an EU intention or desire to force out a member state which doesn't want to leave. And where a member state changes its mind after making an Art.50 notification, that's what would happen. Art.50 doesn't state anything about the notice being irrevocable.

Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:17 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:11 pm There’s no winners in this shit show - we all knew that in June 2016.

Indeed. So you're going to sit and let it play out in the worst way possible?

Not much else we can do.

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:19 pm

Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:17 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:11 pm There’s no winners in this shit show - we all knew that in June 2016.

Indeed. So you're going to sit and let it play out in the worst way possible?

Not much else we can do.

Defeatist. If there ever has been anything at all we can do, now is the time. A groundswell of support for, say, this deal would make the MPs much happier to vote for it and give us some stability.

Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:21 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:19 pm

Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:17 pm

Indeed. So you're going to sit and let it play out in the worst way possible?

Not much else we can do.

Defeatist. If there ever has been anything at all we can do, now is the time. A groundswell of support for, say, this deal would make the MPs much happier to vote for it and give us some stability.

Genuinely interested to hear how you plan to go about that?

Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:19 pm

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:52 am I didn't see that there was an ECJ case ongoing on this point. It is very interesting but do you seriously think that the ECJ is going to establish legal precedent for a member state being able to submit an Art. 50 notice and then whip it back out again at the last minute (precipitating the negotiation that we've had for the past two years in the meantime)? I just think that's never going to be where they come out in their judgment.

They've already said they wouldn't allow it to be used as a negotiation tactic, but nowhere in the treaties is there stated an EU intention or desire to force out a member state which doesn't want to leave. And where a member state changes its mind after making an Art.50 notification, that's what would happen. Art.50 doesn't state anything about the notice being irrevocable.

That's a very hopeful interpretation in my opinion. Another would be that if you invoke a mechanism to leave that mechanism runs its course. If the UK changes it mind it would have to re-join, unless the other members agree to let you terminate that mechanism in a way which is not expressly provided for. I'm sure you of all people know that if you don't provide for something in a contract or an agreement a court will be loathe to insert it after the fact without the agreement of both parties if your argument is based on a less than clear statement of what the complainant thought was the 'intent' was behind the drafting or the overall agreement between the parties.

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:08 pm We should have put bets on the likelihood of her ending up being more unpopular than Maggie Thatcher. I think she's probably a shoo-in now. Hated by Conservatives and Labour equally...

I don't know how representative it is but this is the general sentiment on my twitter feed .

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:22 pm

Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:21 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:19 pm Not much else we can do.

Defeatist. If there ever has been anything at all we can do, now is the time. A groundswell of support for, say, this deal would make the MPs much happier to vote for it and give us some stability.

Genuinely interested to hear how you plan to go about that?

Actually contacting our MPs would be my suggestion. Since they were already the people who will have to vote on whether to accept the withdrawal agreement.

People of Islington North take note!