Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[Elmo!]

To rejoin the EU after weve left will require the other 27 nations agreeing to let us back in. They may decide not to and there’s fuck all we could do. If they did it might take decades to get back in and all of the sweet deals we have will be gone.

Have to admit I would find it pretty amusing if Spain vetoed us getting back in...

[Trada]

Faisal Islam
‏Verified account @faisalislam
21m21 minutes ago

NEW: we have seen internal local authority No Deal planning document from up and down the country, basically those councils responsible for delivering public services including meals, and asked to by Govt to plan and assess risks - concerns standards wont be met, prices rise etc:


Faisal Islam
‏Verified account @faisalislam
9m9 minutes ago

Then North Tyneside Council on changing school menus “around available produce”, and eg “special dietary requirements may be difficult to meet”... “increased use of tins and frozen goods” as a mitigation - but No Deal is in red as a risk for its food provision: /3




Faisal Islam
‏Verified account @faisalislam
17m17 minutes ago

Eg North Ayrshire Council: officials “might need to amend school nutrition standards” to take into account price impact, and availability issues on fresh food - NB Scotland has more detailed standards than England & Wales /2






Faisal Islam
‏Verified account @faisalislam
4m4 minutes ago

councils have checked in with foodbanks about what they might be able to provide in No Deal - fear is that rising food prices will both lead to increased need, but also reduced donations. Eg Slough council asked its foodbank earlier in year, it said we rely on donations: /4

[Alan_X]

However, it has been established in the European Court that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50. And since Withdrawal is a process (not just a single point in time), it would seem logical (to me, at least) that the withdrawal process be made (or is required to be) in accordance with the UK's constitution (such as it is). Or, has it been established that invoking Article 50 is the end of the constitutional requirements as far as Article 50 is concerned?

As for the second part: you long ago convinced me that rejoining will be technically very difficult. And, I think, politically impossible for a generation.

The withdrawal agreement allows for a managed process after we have left. We leave on the 31st October 2019 not two years later.

All a no-deal does is remove the two year managed process.

[Iska]

The ‘immediate end to free movement’ news today is interesting.  There’s no need for it, it backtracks on a promise, would be immediately economically harmful, and there are Tory MPs for whom not doing it is a key issue.  The conclusion must be that it’s a deliberate provocation to make sure No Deal gets blocked, without the government getting the blame?

[ShakaHislop]

The ‘immediate end to free movement’ news today is interesting.  It backtracks on a promise, would be immediately economically harmful, and there are Tory MPs for whom not doing it is a key issue.  The conclusion must be that it’s a deliberate provocation to make sure No Deal gets blocked, without the government getting the blame?

Why must that be the conclusion, and not the more simpler and very much believable one that they're anti-immigration nutters who genuinely believe it's a good idea?

[TepidT2O]

The ‘immediate end to free movement’ news today is interesting.  There’s no need for it, it backtracks on a promise, would be immediately economically harmful, and there are Tory MPs for whom not doing it is a key issue.  The conclusion must be that it’s a deliberate provocation to make sure No Deal gets blocked, without the government getting the blame?

This has been my hope .....

But I’m not utterly convinced to the honest..

[Zeb]

The ‘immediate end to free movement’ news today is interesting.  There’s no need for it, it backtracks on a promise, would be immediately economically harmful, and there are Tory MPs for whom not doing it is a key issue.  The conclusion must be that it’s a deliberate provocation to make sure No Deal gets blocked, without the government getting the blame?

Electioneering too? Immigration is still a (relatively) big thing for voters Tories are pitching a lot of policies towards, whether they've moved Tory >Frottage or Labour >Frottage in recent years.

eg Surridge's breakdown using BMG data from March through May this year.

[Iska]

Why must that be the conclusion, and not the more simpler and very much believable one that they're anti-immigration nutters who genuinely believe it's a good idea?

Because it harms their prospects of getting No Deal through.

[ShakaHislop]

Because it harms their prospects of getting No Deal through.

I don't see how it makes it any more difficult than it is already. I don't believe the number of Tory rebels will increase for example, as they'll cling onto vague promises of business visas and "Global Britain will maintain a flexible immigration system" type empty soundbites.

[killer-heels]

Don't most voters think there is too much immigration? That also includes Remain voters as well.

[TepidT2O]

That operation yellow hammer document...

Out of date of course...

The date on it?

Oh, 1st August.  That was like years ago...

[ShakaHislop]

That operation yellow hammer document...

Out of date of course...

The date on it?

Oh, 1st August.  That was like years ago...

Faisal Islam wrote an interesting Twitter thread about the date of that document.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1162859157969670144

[west_london_red]

What about citizens who have never and have no intention of getting a passport ?

I can’t help but think that if more people got passports earlier and used them we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now.

[Alan_X]

Why must that be the conclusion, and not the more simpler and very much believable one that they're anti-immigration nutters who genuinely believe it's a good idea?

Priti Patel is a fucking nincompoop. The idea that she can think two steps ahead is laughable. These are genuinely horrible people.

[Alan_X]

Don't most voters think there is too much immigration? That also includes Remain voters as well.

I don't know. What I do know is that most people have very little idea how much there actually is. A survey in 2016 showed that Leave voters thought about 20% of the population were non-UK EU Nationals. Remain voters guessed 10%. The actual figure was around 5%.

And areas with low immigration have the most negative view of immigration.

If you're asking 'are people hideously ill-informed and influenced by right-wing scare stories' my answer is yes.

[Jiminy Cricket]

We do leave on Oct 31st unless our Parliament decides otherwise. am not certain if we could win any legal argument to rule any crash out by default as invalid but it's worth looking into it as we know Johnson tried to stop Parliament passing any legislation.

But that's not what Ghost Town (and I) are arguing. We wonder if Brexit will be legal if the Government circumvents Parliament to achieve this goal (even if it just winding down the clock). If Parliament runs out of time because Remain MPs simply fail to get their act together, that's one thing. But what if, for example, the Government (transparently) prorogues Parliament to rob it of the ability to instruct the PM to revoke Article 50?

[Alan_X]

Because it harms their prospects of getting No Deal through.

Ending Freedom of Movement immediately and unilaterally effectively drives a coach and horses through the agreed Withdrawal Agreement.

[Alan_X]

But that's not what Ghost Town (and I) are arguing. We wonder if Brexit will be legal if the Government circumvents Parliament to achieve this goal (even if it just winding down the clock). If Parliament runs out of time because Remain MPs simply fail to get their act together, that's one thing. But what if, for example, the Government (transparently) prorogues Parliament to rob it of the ability to instruct the PM to revoke Article 50?

That would be an ecumenical matter...

I would guess that the UK's internal squabbles would be irrelevant to the EU. The question of whether a Johnson Government can stop the UK revoking Article 50 when it was legitimately voted through by Parliament is moot. The 27 EU states have had their fill of the UK fannying around while they commit economic suicide. We will be out, legally, as far as the EU is concerned.

If I was one of the 27 I would suggest that the UK has had 3 years to sort this shit-show out and one more monumental cock-up after three years of monumental cock-ups is not their problem.

[Machae]

Ending Freedom of Movement immediately and unilaterally effectively drives a coach and horses through the agreed Withdrawal Agreement.

They've got something better lined up. Its gonna be huge, huge I tell you.

[Red-Soldier]

The ‘immediate end to free movement’ news today is interesting.  There’s no need for it, it backtracks on a promise, would be immediately economically harmful, and there are Tory MPs for whom not doing it is a key issue.  The conclusion must be that it’s a deliberate provocation to make sure No Deal gets blocked, without the government getting the blame?

I think it's just bluster to give them a boost in the upcoming GE.

The rabid foreigner haters will love it!!

[killer-heels]

I don't know. What I do know is that most people have very little idea how much there actually is. A survey in 2016 showed that Leave voters thought about 20% of the population were non-UK EU Nationals. Remain voters guessed 10%. The actual figure was around 5%.

And areas with low immigration have the most negative view of immigration.

If you're asking 'are people hideously ill-informed and influenced by right-wing scare stories' my answer is yes.

Well considering that the vast majority of the public are as thick as pig shit, or racist, or both, then that answer is not surprising.

[TepidT2O]

Well considering that the vast majority of the public are as thick as pig shit, or racist, or both, then that answer is not surprising.

What utter crap.

[Jiminy Cricket]

That would be an ecumenical matter...

I like the Father Ted reference there.

I would guess that the UK's internal squabbles would be irrelevant to the EU. The question of whether a Johnson Government can stop the UK revoking Article 50 when it was legitimately voted through by Parliament is moot. The 27 EU states have had their fill of the UK fannying around while they commit economic suicide. We will be out, legally, as far as the EU is concerned.

But, the 'illegal' decision would occur while the UK is still a member of the EU, so would not EU law apply?

If I was one of the 27 I would suggest that the UK has had 3 years to sort this shit-show out and one more monumental cock-up after three years of monumental cock-ups is not their problem.

And that would be understandable. But not really relevant to the point am I am (probably poorly) trying to make here.

[stevo7]

Never liked Mark Walters

[Zeb]

If it helps with the Article 50 constitutional requirements discussion, this is how the CJEU's Advocate General summed up where the constitutional requirements fit into Article 50. (From the House of Commons' Library Briefing paper, written by Sylvia de Mars, senior lecturer on EU law up at Newcastle).

Finally, the A[dvocate] G[eneral] stressed that a different condition of Article 50 TEU here has significant effects: as Member States can withdraw from the EU as long as they do so in line with their domestic constitutional requirements, this implies that a violation of domestic constitutional requirements could result in a notification of withdrawal needing to be annulled (para 104). A reference here can clearly be made to the Miller judgment: had the UK Government given notice without putting a bill before Parliament, this would have been in violation of the conditions set out in Article 50(2), and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller should have resulted in the UK withdrawing its notice to withdraw. This, according to the AG, made it clear that unilateral revocation of withdrawal was at least in some contexts possible. The same would happen if the notice to withdraw was filed on a correct constitutional basis, but that basis was later overturned— by, for instance, a referendum or a ‘meaningful vote’ or an election— which would again require a Member State to withdraw its Article 50 TEU notice (para 105) or would, in the alternative, force a Member State out of the EU when it no longer wished to leave (para 111).

[Paragraphs] 146 and 147 suggested that while a Member State cannot be asked to explain why it changed its mind, it is subject to a time limit: revocation of notification to withdraw must be issued within the two year negotiation period that was started by Article 50 TEU or before a withdrawal agreement was formally concluded, as by that point the notification ‘had already taken full effect’.

It's the process which leads to the notification which is important and, having done that properly, out is out if we run out of time before revoking. 

edited: got Sylvia de Mars job title wrong.

[oldfordie]

If it helps with the Article 50 constitutional requirements discussion, this is how the CJEU's Advocate General summed up where the constitutional requirements fit into Article 50. (From the House of Commons' Library Briefing paper, written by Sylvia de Mars, senior lecturer on EU law up at Newcastle).

It's the process which leads to the notification which is important and, having done that properly, out is out if we run out of time before revoking. 

edited: got Sylvia de Mars job title wrong.

according to the AG, made it clear that unilateral revocation of withdrawal was at least in some contexts possible. The same would happen if the notice to withdraw was filed on a correct constitutional basis, but that basis was later overturned— by, for instance, a referendum or a ‘meaningful vote’ or an election— which would again require a Member State to withdraw its Article 50 TEU notice (para 105) or would, in the alternative, force a Member State out of the EU when it no longer wished to leave (para 111).

Am confused, have I got this right, the AG is saying another referendum would over turn the triggering of ART 50? the referendum was advisory so has no legality in the UK parliamentary legal procedure.I would rather hear the opinion of the EU on this.

[Zeb]

Am confused, have I got this right, the AG is saying another referendum would over turn the triggering of ART 50? the referendum was advisory so has no legality in the UK parliamentary legal procedure.I would rather hear the opinion of the EU on this.

It's just an example to show that countries can change their mind even after having made the notification. Our constitutional order is that Parliament authorises something to happen and the PM then does it. The 'meaningful vote' example is us really.

That's the person who advises the EU judges on how to rule on EU law saying that, although they don't have to take his advice they used it in big chunks to decide we could revoke without needing the EU's permission.

[oldfordie]

It's just an example to show that countries can change their mind even after having made the notification. Our constitutional order is that Parliament authorises something to happen and the PM then does it. The 'meaningful vote' example is us really.

That's the person who advises the EU judges on how to rule on EU law saying that, although they don't have to take his advice they used it in big chunks to decide we could revoke without needing the EU's permission.

Thanks, didn't know Cox advised the EU judges on EU law.would have thought it was the other way round.
So where does that leave us when it comes to the PM refusing to carry out the instructions of parliament by refusing to ask the EU for a extension.

[Zeb]

Thanks, didn't know Cox advised the EU judges on EU law.would have thought it was the other way round.
So where does that leave us when it comes to the PM refusing to carry out the instructions of parliament by refusing to ask the EU for a extension.

Just clocked that the AG in the quoted text is ambiguous. It's not our Attorney General! Going to read it in his voice though now! The European Court has 11 neutral experts, called Advocates General, who look over cases and then give an opinion which the judges can take or leave as they please. In this case the judges took lots of it and used it in their judgement which is why it's relevant - at least in terms of a view from the EU.

Not sure there's an answer to Johnson refusing to seek an extension but to change the government? Assuming changing the law hasn't worked.

[ShakaHislop]

.@SenSchumer - the most senior Democrat in the US Senate says he will oppose any US / UK trade deal that “undermines the Good Friday Agreement or facilitates the return of a hard border.”

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1163565078282670080

[Lush is the best medicine...]

At least there are some grown ups left

[oldfordie]

Just clocked that the AG in the quoted text is ambiguous. It's not our Attorney General! Going to read it in his voice though now! The European Court has 11 neutral experts, called Advocates General, who look over cases and then give an opinion which the judges can take or leave as they please. In this case the judges took lots of it and used it in their judgement which is why it's relevant - at least in terms of a view from the EU.

Not sure there's an answer to Johnson refusing to seek an extension but to change the government? Assuming changing the law hasn't worked.

Wondering what our AG was doing advising EU judges on EU law,
Am not sure how we stand if Johnson refuses to obey Parliament either but I think MPs have to prepare for any trick Johnson may pull while we have time, be silly to leave it till Sept.

[Zeb]

Wondering what our AG was doing advising EU judges on EU law,
Am not sure how we stand if Johnson refuses to obey Parliament either but I think MPs have to prepare for any trick Johnson may pull while we have time, be silly to leave it till Sept.

Reading the whole thing to music from Pirates of Penzance now.

Will ask about legal recourse with Johnson. That's where Jo Maugham's case fits into things, I suspect. Although David Allen Green was saying on Remainiacs today that the courts really don't want to be involved in making decisions on behalf of politicians. And essentially this a political problem and not a legal one.

[leroy]

I don't know. What I do know is that most people have very little idea how much there actually is. A survey in 2016 showed that Leave voters thought about 20% of the population were non-UK EU Nationals. Remain voters guessed 10%. The actual figure was around 5%.

And areas with low immigration have the most negative view of immigration.

If you're asking 'are people hideously ill-informed and influenced by right-wing scare stories' my answer is yes.

True in most places I think.  Very true in Australia.

[oldfordie]

Reading the whole thing to music from Pirates of Penzance now.

Will ask about legal recourse with Johnson. That's where Jo Maugham's case fits into things, I suspect. Although David Allen Green was saying on Remainiacs today that the courts really don't want to be involved in making decisions on behalf of politicians. And essentially this a political problem and not a legal one.

Am sure family guys singing along with you now,, I am the very model of a modern major general, 
I can't see how it can't be a legal problem if we leave when Parliament has voted to ask for a further extension. it probably won't happen anyway, more about being prepared for all eventualities.

[Zeb]

Am sure family guys singing along with you now,, I am the very model of a modern major general, 
I can't see how it can't be a legal problem if we leave when Parliament has voted to ask for a further extension. it probably won't happen anyway, more about being prepared for all eventualities.

Send them all off on tour may be the right plan. Promise to let them on tv once in a while to wave a flag.

Think the political problem is that we're assuming the PM would break domestic law to do this, assuming Parliament legislates to make it the case. Solution is to remove the PM before it happens rather than taking him to court after he's done it to complain, isn't it?

[PaulF]

Well considering that the vast majority of the public are as thick as pig shit, or racist, or both, then that answer is not surprising.

I think you often get a rough ride on here. Comments like that don't help your case though.

[PaulF]

Reading the whole thing to music from Pirates of Penzance now.

This whole thread should be read with the Benny hill theme playing.

[Jiminy Cricket]

If it helps with the Article 50 constitutional requirements discussion, this is how the CJEU's Advocate General summed up where the constitutional requirements fit into Article 50. (From the House of Commons' Library Briefing paper, written by Sylvia de Mars, senior lecturer on EU law up at Newcastle).

[...]

It's the process which leads to the notification which is important and, having done that properly, out is out if we run out of time before revoking. 

edited: got Sylvia de Mars job title wrong.

Thank you for efforts to explain the situation, Zeb. I am still less than 100% convinced, but that might be a failure of me to understand. I guess it will all come out in the wash if indeed Johnson attempts to usurp the will of Parliament.

[oldfordie]

James O'Brien. caller who thinks the EU are at fault over the NI border.
Amazing how many people can talk so much s,, while thinking they are making a intelligent argument.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-brexit-top-10-epic-row-irish-border/