Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[badass]

And that, of course, ties in with my point about immigration.

My issue is not with race of immigrants, but simply with the scale of immigration, per year.

Even if we, as a country, could define who we accept as an immigrant, on a non-racial basis of course, two things inherently follow :-

1) Each immigrant will bring things we need, skills, etc. So, it's a good thing for us that they come, and presumably for them or they wouldn't. AND

2) Each immigrant puts an extra load on infrastructure and service provision here.


Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, there are exactly two issues with immigration :-

- first, does it present a net benefit, or not?

- second, can we adequately increase infrastructuew and service provision to cope?
<------------------------------------------------------------------
snip
--------------------------------------------------------->


So we basically have a binary choice :-


1) Reduce overall net immigration to a level our current ability to provide infrastructure and service provusion at,

OR

2) Dramatically increase our effort and spend on providing the necessary indrastructure and services.

The problem, and it's why I support immigration being controlled by UK not EU politicians, is I don't see ANY serious chance of either doing option 1). I'm not convinced they'll get to grips with 2) either, but it is at least easier to do, and can be done much quicker.

And here we have a post which focuses on immigration where it is considered to currently be a problem with not even the slightest hint of racism.

Where our views differ is that I believed that the relatively uncontrolled immigration from the EU is more than offset by the benefits brought by being a member of the EU. However, in a "I want my cake and to eat it" kind of way, I would prefer that immigration from the EU is controlled - in that immigrants should individually/as families (rather than just immigration in general) provide a net benefit to UK society before being allowed in whilst being a member of the EU. Of course, this is probably impossible.

Saracen of course disagrees with me and doesn't rate the benefits of membership of the EU as highly as the costs (not just talking money here) of being a member.

On the infrastructure point, I absolutely believe that we can increase the infrastructure provisioning to cope. The problem is NIMBYism and short term-ism. No one wants houses being built near them and politicians keep kicking the can down the road in terms of properly tying spend on infrastructure with making private landowners richer by granting planning permission. The Community Infrastructure levy is a joke in practice.

[TooNice]

i.e. what would it achieve?

[...]

It's contentious as hell. Probably always will be. So I can't personally see 2025 changing. that.

From the EU's perspective, they get to see how things play out given more time. At this point, I wonder if May would survive another vote of non-confidence. Or if she won't quit before it's done. Now of course, they may risk getting someone more anti-EU instead, but the worse thing that can happen is no-deal, and if May doesn't manage to get her deal through and doesn't revoke A50, then it's no-deal anyway (granted that if that is how it is going to end anyway, better pull the plug sooner than later - but that needs to be balanced with the possibility that the UK come with a clear answer that may be in their interest).

And even if May ends up staying, and trying and failing her push the same deal another 50 times over the next two years, there is the inevitable GE in 2022 (if none take place before) which would force the public to be involved again even if referendum 2 never takes place.

Now I know that most Brexiters would not want anything that may jeopardise their "win", but I am wondering if there is some benefits.. to be balanced against the negative (that comes from the limbo) from wanting to grant a long extension rather than a shorter one.

(This is all academic curiosity - I am not convinced that this will end in a way that I'd be satisfied and have already put in motion plans to reside elsewhere in part because of it. Brexit, be it the current deal or no-deal will kill some of my -potential- plans, rather than directly affect me now)

(I also want to add how cringey it is to watch our PM push the same bloody deal when she is adamant that a second referendum would hurt public trust in democracy. Yet it is fine when she does it)

[Saracen999]

It would appear, and I stress 'appear' because things aren't always what they seem, that a long-term delayvis off the table, if Macron can be taken off the table.

As for votes of mo confidence .... from who? The Tory party cannot, for another, what, 9 months? That is, 12 months since the last one failed. If there could be, it would result in a chsnge if Tory leader and hence PM, but not a genersl election.

Or .... from the house? As that's a vote in the government, rather than the PN personally, my bet is it would resolve more or less along party lines. Do you see many Tories viting against their own party, and risking Corbyn as PM. I can't see it, though you never know. And that would put the DUP in a central role, and much though they don't like May's deal, they are Unionists, and despise Corbyn et.al. for the perceived IRA-symathiser stance.

And besides, any such vote, and a potential GE cannot take place by next Friday.

What I think just possibly might happen, if Deal Vote 3 goes down, and perhaps by a bigger margin, and especially given the EUs "Withdrawal Dealbor No Deal" ultimatum (becsuse in practical effect, that's what their current stance amounts to) .... is May hardening up, delivering a No Deal exit and then resigning.

It fits with what she's said.

For instance, repeatedly promising March 29th, and also (paraphrasing) ....

"June 30th is the maximum extension under this Prime Minister."

Also, it fits with her 'blame MPs for not voting for the deal" stsnce - she'll say her deal us the best that could be achieved (by her) and that she, and both msin parties, were elected on a promise of honouring the regerendum result. And yes, I know some people woukd interpret "honouring" differently, but this is what I think her mindset is.

So, she'll say she had the deal but MPs wouldn't (asuming vote 3 is no) , and the only acceptable alternative is to leave with no deal. Then, as she couldn't carry the house on her deal, she'll stwnd down and let some other prize plum try to manage No Deal.

Of course, even if I'm right about that, I'm remjnded of "Events, dear boy, events". A week os fwmously a long time in politics and right now, so is a day. And next week, an hour will be.


I'm still inclined to think at least half her strategy is still to see if the EU will go though with letting no desl happen .... or blink at the last moment. But bearing in mind our legal position, that way, accidents can happen.

None the less, we know from experience that EU negotiations are a bit like a swimming swan - all serene and stately above the surface, and a maelstrom of flailing feet below it. The EU (and us, of course) are perfectly capable (and demonstrably and self-admittedly do) say one tjing, on camera, for both international and domssyic public consumption, while behind the scenes, all sorts of arm-twisting, posturing and posing, threats and outright bribes (not perdonal but political bribes) are making the real deals. The only question is when, and indeed if we, the respective publics, ever find out what really happened.

Usually, we don't.

[Galant]

Can someone explain to me how the extension of article 50 works legally on the UK end - considering that the date of Mar 29th was passed into UK law?

I get that the EU can agree to whatever it likes, but considering all the parliamentary process in getting the law passed, is it that simple to simply change things up? I assume the vote last week in approval of the motion to extend article 50 is the major part in this, but if the law has to go through Commons, Lords, etc. a simple vote to change it seems a little simple. Would it be just as simple to scrap it entirely?

[spacein_vader]

Can someone explain to me how the extension of article 50 works legally on the UK end - considering that the date of Mar 29th was passed into UK law?

I get that the EU can agree to whatever it likes, but considering all the parliamentary process in getting the law passed, is it that simple to simply change things up? I assume the vote last week in approval of the motion to extend article 50 is the major part in this, but if the law has to go through Commons, Lords, etc. a simple vote to change it seems a little simple. Would it be just as simple to scrap it entirely?

There is a mechanism in the UK law for the end date to be changed (but not removed,) by Statutory Instrument. This is a piece of secondary legislation that can be quickly drafted and put to a simple vote to pass without having multiple readings etc. So assuming a majority in the commons will vote for it (by no means guaranteed,) its relatively quick to do.

Scrapping it entirely is very simple in principle: The prime minister can simply write to the EU and tell them she's cancelling our application to leave under article 50. Politically it's almost impossible. Even if she was inclined to do it (she isn't,) she'd face uproar from parliament for bypassing them and would almost certainly immediately be faced with and probably lose a vote of no confidence (The ERG wouldn't back her after that,) assuming she didn't resign first. You'd then end up with some sort of Labour led coalition government or more likely a general election with the possibility of civil unrest from Brexit leaning people to boot.

It's a bit like me dating Jennifer Lawrence: technically its possible but in the real world it's never going to happen.

[Saracen999]

Can someone explain to me how the extension of article 50 works legally on the UK end - considering that the date of Mar 29th was passed into UK law?

I get that the EU can agree to whatever it likes, but considering all the parliamentary process in getting the law passed, is it that simple to simply change things up? I assume the vote last week in approval of the motion to extend article 50 is the major part in this, but if the law has to go through Commons, Lords, etc. a simple vote to change it seems a little simple. Would it be just as simple to scrap it entirely?

It works on the basis of primary legislation (an Act) setting up the authority for a minister, often a specifc minister and usually a very senior one, like "Secretary of State" level, to either do something on their own authority, or via secondary leguslation, i.e. a S.I. or Statutory Instrument.

Primary legislation does indeed have to go through a detailed legislative process, inc. white papers, committee stages (in both houses), first reading, sevond reading etc, and of course, Royal Assent. And that certainly cannot be done by next Friday.

BUT ..... when the "Primary" legislation, which among other things repeals the European Communites Act thT effectively is our membership, they foresaw the possibility that the date, which is also specifed in the "Withdrawal" Act, might need to change at short notice, so provision was made in the Withdrawal Act for how that can be done, and in tjus case, it's by a minister "by regulation".

It also sets the conditions on which that can be done. It's been months since I read it so I'm not sure of this bit but, IIRC, it requires an agreement from the EU. In other words, it cannot be done just on ministerial whim but, if the conditions are met, it csn be done by a minister, via an S.I. because, and only because the Act itself establishes that authority.

The final piece of the picture is that an S.I, while still law, us FAR less legislatively complex to do, because well, it's been through the debate, comittee, votes, etc process already, so it's more or less a simple case of preparing the S.I. (which I'd bet was done weeks or monghs ago), sticking in the date, and hsving a simple yes/no vote in the Commons.

S.I.'s are a very common method for getting usually simple changes into law. Lots of them are no more that the stsndard preamble, and then a single sentence ir two. This would be one of those.

On the other hand, they can be quite complex and far-reaching. An example of that would be the (now replaced) 'Distance Selling Regulations' which, if I remember the full title, was the Sale of Gooods (Distance Selling) Regulations, which was an S.I.

Note the "Regulation" bit on the end. It was a "regulatory" change empowered by the Sale of Goods Act (and the legislative discussion was at EU level, where a mandatory "directive" was issued requiring all member states to implement the minimum standards set by that directive into national law. It's also where the "two year warrsnty" misunderstanding came from because, under EU law, "warranty" doesn't mean what liads of people think it did, which was actually a product guarantee. The UK SoGA already had a 6-year (slightly different in Scotland) term for what was meant by "warranty" so no changes on that were needed.


Anyway, I hope clears it up.

An "Act" requires the full legislative process but, because the need has been foreseen and the power already established in a pre-existing Act, a "regulation" csn be implemented very quickly indeed.

And back to Brexit, may need to be implemented quickly.

Again, IIRC, that SI power requires an actual agreement to be in place and as of now, it isn't. Not formally. So, once we know whether the Commons pass MV3 on the deal or not, we'll know which 'route' the EU are up for, and which date is operative, and then we will need an extremely quick SI ....and before 11pm UK (midnight in Euroland) next Friday or, well, as I said, accidents csn happen and we could find ourselves out, with the Communities Act repealed, unintentionally.

[Saracen999]

....
It's a bit like me dating Jennifer Lawrence: technically its possible but in the real world it's never going to happen.

Defeatist.

Anyway, there's always Milla Jovovich, and .... well, etc.


Oh, and .... re: SIs ... I must learn to type faster. Or say less.

[Galant]

Scrapping it entirely is very simple in principle: The prime minister can simply write to the EU and tell them she's cancelling our application to leave under article 50.

I get how that would end the process for the EU side, but that wouldn't change the law established in the UK, would it?

[Galant]

On the commonly referenced notion about "political suicide", I'm beginning to think it's really not relevant, at least where there are no alternative options. If all parties and majorities are agreed to renege on their word, deals, etc. then it's not like you can vote for someone else.

Brexit specifically aside, this whole thing seems to be rather eye opening in the sense that the UK population is essentially powerless against a "democratic" government that decides to ignore them right across the board. That sort of thing has lead to civil unrest in other places, but it seem unimaginable in the UK.

[petercook7]

On the commonly referenced notion about "political suicide", I'm beginning to think it's really not relevant, at least where there are no alternative options. If all parties and majorities are agreed to renege on their word, deals, etc. then it's not like you can vote for someone else.

Brexit specifically aside, this whole thing seems to be rather eye opening in the sense that the UK population is essentially powerless against a "democratic" government that decides to ignore them right across the board. That sort of thing has lead to civil unrest in other places, but it seem unimaginable in the UK.

This is were the problem lies, If they do not follow the vote, then why should other countries listen to the UK about democracy, and how to run a country if the politicians in the UK can not even follow their own rules.
This country lectures 3rd world countries on democracy all the time, even going as far as placing embargo's.

[Ttaskmaster]

This is were the problem lies, If they do not follow the vote, then why should other countries listen to the UK about democracy, and how to run a country if the politicians in the UK can not even follow their own rules.

Well, as I understand it, the government comprises individuals that we the people have elected to run the country on our behalf. We elect those who we feel best represent our interests and our values, but they ultimately make the decisions, supposedly based on superior expertise and knowledge of how to run a country. This also means that they ought to know what is best for the country and how to achieve it more than any of us should. So if they decide that Brexit really is not the best option, in the end, that's what we pay them to do.
If it were just them doing exactly what we tell them to, they'd be no more than puppets collating voting slips and serve no purpose - We'd be better off all voting at once and The Queen simply enacting everything based on the majority count.
As I understand it, anyway... The reality of course may differ somewhat!!

But even then, they've always said the Referendum was basically just an opinion poll, and since it was voted before we knew exactly what kind of deal(s) would be on the table, it was arguably an uninformed (and thanks to the media bunfight, highly misinformed in many respects) vote.
We voted to leave. We did not vote on how, and if there is no agreement on how, we cannot in all good consciousness simply leave just because people think we should.

[petercook7]

Well, as I understand it, the government comprises individuals that we the people have elected to run the country on our behalf. We elect those who we feel best represent our interests and our values, but they ultimately make the decisions, supposedly based on superior expertise and knowledge of how to run a country. This also means that they ought to know what is best for the country and how to achieve it more than any of us should. So if they decide that Brexit really is not the best option, in the end, that's what we pay them to do.
If it were just them doing exactly what we tell them to, they'd be no more than puppets collating voting slips and serve no purpose - We'd be better off all voting at once and The Queen simply enacting everything based on the majority count.
As I understand it, anyway... The reality of course may differ somewhat!!

But even then, they've always said the Referendum was basically just an opinion poll, and since it was voted before we knew exactly what kind of deal(s) would be on the table, it was arguably an uninformed (and thanks to the media bunfight, highly misinformed in many respects) vote.
We voted to leave. We did not vote on how, and if there is no agreement on how, we cannot in all good consciousness simply leave just because people think we should.

Yes, however art 50 was handed to the EU, at this point it was agreed that we would leave.

We should leave we always have the option to return to the EU, but this would mean abandoning the pound etc... but then again this is almost certain in any avenue after the the Art 50.

No matter what happens now, the pound is toast in the future, as there is a good chance that we would re-join.

We have been told for years that having democracy is the most important aspect of our society, yet it seems this is untrue now.

[Galant]

Well, as I understand it, the government comprises individuals that we the people have elected to run the country on our behalf. We elect those who we feel best represent our interests and our values, but they ultimately make the decisions, supposedly based on superior expertise and knowledge of how to run a country. This also means that they ought to know what is best for the country and how to achieve it more than any of us should. So if they decide that Brexit really is not the best option, in the end, that's what we pay them to do.
If it were just them doing exactly what we tell them to, they'd be no more than puppets collating voting slips and serve no purpose - We'd be better off all voting at once and The Queen simply enacting everything based on the majority count.
As I understand it, anyway... The reality of course may differ somewhat!!

But even then, they've always said the Referendum was basically just an opinion poll, and since it was voted before we knew exactly what kind of deal(s) would be on the table, it was arguably an uninformed (and thanks to the media bunfight, highly misinformed in many respects) vote.
We voted to leave. We did not vote on how, and if there is no agreement on how, we cannot in all good consciousness simply leave just because people think we should.

That's true in general but can't be true up to any extent. The limiting factor in a democracy is the ability of the electorate to vote the government out/replace them, or just voting in general. If the votes are themselves framed in such a way that the electorate has no real choice then you've gamed the system - either in a referendum, or where your choice of leaders ultimately leaves you with no real choice. This is rather closely related to the problems many see with the EU itself. Technically we vote for leaders who then make choices and govern the EU, or bring in others. So technically, it all stems from the choice of voters, however, the powers of those leaders, the potential influence they have, the legal framework, and the number of different levels and moving parts can be argued to dilute the voting power of the electorate so that in the end one's say is very limited.

I gave an example earlier of Maduro in Venezuela. One step he took was to remove one political body, replace it with another, and then give voters a choice between his cronies. Are they voting? Yes. Do they have a real choice? No.

Obviously an extreme an example, but the point, it highlights the spirit vs. law issue in 'democratic' government.

In this referendum the elected representatives responded to the electorate by giving them a referendum and then saying they would honour the result. From then on various leaders, May especially, have made a lot of promises, but have begun to back out of them. Now, if an elected representative presents an opportunity to the people he or she is supposed to be representing, then lies to those people, or changes the game, or ignores them, that doesn't sound much like representation. It can't go on endlessly, there has to be a point where an elected government has failed in their representation. Otherwise anything any government does could be considered justifiable by the simple fact that they were elected.

[TooNice]

Something I find fascinating about our "democracy" is that our MPs can be "whipped" into voting for party policies.

It would seem far more democratic to me if every vote was a free vote. Obviously Labour MP or Conservative MP could be expected to share more in common with their respective colleagues on more issues, and likely to vote similarly more often than not.. but being nearly forced to vote a certain way seems.. odd.

Am I missing something here?

[Ttaskmaster]

Yes, however art 50 was handed to the EU, at this point it was agreed that we would leave.

And yet there is (and always has been?) an arranged mechanism for delaying or even retracting that...

We have been told for years that having democracy is the most important aspect of our society, yet it seems this is untrue now.

We have been told many, many things... usually outright nominalisations, which is how most people come to power.
Yes, we vote them in. No, we don't really know their true agenda beyond wanting power, or whether The Opposition will block their attempts at every turn anyway and make them look ineffective.

But yeah - I got your democracy, right here:

If the votes are themselves framed in such a way that the electorate has no real choice then you've gamed the system - either in a referendum, or where your choice of leaders ultimately leaves you with no real choice.

Or when the votes are presented in ways that leave so much open to interpretation, extrapolation or that you could drive a tank through it...

So technically, it all stems from the choice of voters, however, the powers of those leaders, the potential influence they have, the legal framework, and the number of different levels and moving parts can be argued to dilute the voting power of the electorate so that in the end one's say is very limited.

Or very easily influenced, controlled or manipulated.

It can't go on endlessly, there has to be a point where an elected government has failed in their representation.

Assuming those being represented fully comprehend what is in their best interests, you see... Four legs good, two legs better!

[Galant]

Assuming those being represented fully comprehend what is in their best interests, you see... Four legs good, two legs better!

Nope. Not assuming that at all. The elitist overtones aside, the point stands by itself. There must be a point where a representative government can fail in it's job.