Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[Galant]

So following May's late night 'new deal' with legally binding assurances, Geoffery Cox has provided his legal advice on that deal.

The full document can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.go..._co..___2_.pdf

The last paragraph/point seems to be rather damning:


"19. However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either
party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom
would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally
lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement." (Bold added by me for clarity).

So it would seem that the main legal assurance sought in the latest dealings - the the confirmation that the UK can legally, unilaterally, pull out of a backstop (and not be locked into it indefinitely) - has not been achieved.

Will that be the central sticking point? Will the new version be voted down today?

[Ttaskmaster]

Will that be the central sticking point? Will the new version be voted down today?

Well, Corbyn has previously said he'd vote against anything that May comes up with, even if it's solid gold, because he's an absolute pineapple... so I assume MPs will just vote for what they want and hang the country out to dry.

[Saracen999]

Well, Corbyn has previously said he'd vote against anything that May comes up with, even if it's solid gold, because he's an absolute pineapple... so I assume MPs will just vote for what they want and hang the country out to dry.

The problem is, even if all MPs act utterly in what they believe is the best interests of the country, there is no agreement on what "best interests" actually are. This, of course, is because nobody, but nobody, know what the future holds.

May's deal, however, does at least raise a fairly broad concensus .... neither side likes it.


Will it get through tonight? Dunno.

But several MPs, including both sides, have effectively said it's a political decision as to whether, regardless of how bad the deal is, it may be better than the alternative.

So ... May might, when it comes to the crunch, get the ERG on-board because they fear either a yet-softer Brexit or no Brexit if they don't, and Remainer MPs may get on-board fearing a No-Deal Brexit if they don't.

So just as MPs on both sides don't like it for different reasons, they may vote for it, also for different reasons.

Personally, I think the so-called is a disgrace, and the result of two years of wasted time under the direction of an incompetent nincompoop at No.10, and the "Strasburg" additions a deceitful fig-leaf that changes nothing of substance, and the sole purpose of which is precisely and deliberately to give a fig leaf of cover to MPs that have taken a firm pidition, to change their stance. It allows those fearing what might happen if it fails an excuse to say it's enough to change their mind.

Will it pass? I sure hope not but .... dunno. MPs tend to be a venal bunch, and it wouldn't surprise me.

[ik9000]

Well, Corbyn has previously said he'd vote against anything that May comes up with, even if it's solid gold, because he's an absolute pineapple... so I assume MPs will just vote for what they want and hang the country out to dry.

That made me laugh. Tragedy is the circumstances are so important it also makes me want to cry.

Now I'm stuck with this in my head:

[Ttaskmaster]

The problem is, even if all MPs act utterly in what they believe is the best interests of the country, there is no agreement on what "best interests" actually are. This, of course, is because nobody, but nobody, know what the future holds.

I actually meant they'd vote for what they want, not what their constituents want, or what they thought the country needed... just what they themselves want.

Will it get through tonight? Dunno.

Can I have 'Yes' at odds of 5/7, please?
My heart says they should vote No, but given teh way things have gone lately I think they'll be quite sarcastic in their handling of the issue.

It allows those fearing what might happen if it fails an excuse to say it's enough to change their mind.

And the IRA a pretext to come out and start bombing things again, it seems...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...ions-1.3822933

[Galant]

DUP have issued a statement:

http://www.mydup.com/news/article/st...nionist-party3

“The Prime Minister set out a clear objective for legally binding change which would command a majority in the House of Commons in line with the Brady amendment. We recognise that the Prime Minister has made limited progress in her discussions with the European Union. However in our view sufficient progress has not been achieved at this time.

Having carefully considered the published material as well as measuring what has been achieved against our own fundamental tests, namely the impact of the backstop on the constitutional and economic integrity of the Union of the United Kingdom, it is clear that the risks remain that the UK would be unable to lawfully exit the backstop were it to be activated.

The Attorney General’s legal advice is clear in his last paragraph “the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the protocol’s arrangements , save by agreement.”

We want to see a deal which works for every part of the United Kingdom. We will support the right deal which respects the referendum result and Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

The European Union has been intransigent. It is possible to reach a sensible deal which works for the United Kingdom and the European Union but it will require all sides to be reasonable and in deal making mode.” (Bold mine)


If the DUP vote against the deal is it even possible for it to get through?

[ik9000]

you say potato, we'd prefer Irish peace, let's call the whole thing off.

How are our MPs still blundering around? No one sensible goes through a no-fault divorce without attempting some reconciliation and counselling first. Not when this much is at stake. Stop the madness and take a period of proper internal reflection about what the real issues are, and how best to resolve them. Then work out if that really requires leaving the EU before throwing us out in this haphazard and incompetent manner. Seriously I think school children could do better.

[Saracen999]

6

I actually meant they'd vote for what they want, not what their constituents want, or what they thought the country needed... just what they themselves want.


.....

So did I.

Brexit MPs believe leaving is in the country's best interests, and Remainer MPs believe remaining is in the best interests of the country ....and clearly, the two views, however sincerely held, are mutually exclusive.

[Saracen999]

you say potato, we'd prefer Irish peace, let's call the whole thing off.

How are our MPs still blundering around? No one sensible goes through a no-fault divorce without attempting some reconciliation and counselling first. Not when this much is at stake. Stop the madness and take a period of proper internal reflection about what the real issues are, and how best to resolve them. Then work out if that really requires leaving the EU before throwing us out in this haphazard and incompetent manner. Seriously I think school children could do better.

Leaving the EU is a major objective in it's own right, not a means of meeting some other objective.

[ik9000]

Leaving the EU is a major objective in it's own right, not a means of meeting some other objective.

but yet there's been jack all proper study of what will happen and even less proper planning of how to go about it. We get a complete cack storm and bungled delivery. FFS before you jump off a bungee bridge you check the cord is attached at both ends and not frayed. You don't just run and hope for the best. I'm not saying don't eventually decide to brexit, I'm saying sort our stuff out first and then work out if it's a sensible thing to do. ATM nobody knows and the process is farcical. ergo STOP AND TAKE STOCK while there is still time.

[ik9000]

6
So did I.

Brexit MPs believe leaving is in the country's best interests, and Remainer MPs believe remaining is in the best interests of the country ....and clearly, the two views, however sincerely held, are mutually exclusive.

and yet so many remainer MPs claim to be doing what the people want (brexit) even when their own constituency overwhelmingly voted to remain and the overall % nationally that actually voted to go is in the 30-40%. Yeah, great course of action.

[Ttaskmaster]

Brexit MPs believe leaving is in the country's best interests, and Remainer MPs believe remaining is in the best interests of the country

I'm sure a few do genuinely believe that... I'm alluding to the assertions (threads around here somewhere) that others have devised ways to make personal profits from the various possible outcomes, though.

FFS before you jump off a bungee bridge you check the cord is attached at both ends and not frayed.

No, you make sure all cameras are on you as you jump, thus demonstrating your committment to the desires of the people who elected you... while falling safely into the previously erected safety net just out of camera shot and being ferried safely away to somewhere warm with bikini-clad women and pink drinks with umbrellas...

[Saracen999]

but yet there's been jack all proper study of what will happen and even less proper planning of how to go about it. We get a complete cack storm and bungled delivery. FFS before you jump off a bungee bridge you check the cord is attached at both ends and not frayed. You don't just run and hope for the best. I'm not saying don't eventually decide to brexit, I'm saying sort our stuff out first and then work out if it's a sensible thing to do. ATM nobody knows and the process is farcical. ergo STOP AND TAKE STOCK while there is still time.

Good point .... but, justifucation for Brexit, at least for supporters, takes place on several levels. Without going through it all, two specific levels are :-

- the EU as a political project, and

- economic impact.

On the first, not much planning needs to be done. Either you approve of the (call it whatever you will) Unuted States of Europe, it's objectives or implementation, or you don't. Not much need for planning is involved.

There is, of course, an argument that says "stay in and reform from the inside", to which my response is first, that's a remainer argument, and second, as a country we've been trying tgat for 40 years and got nowhere. That's not to say the UK hasn't had an influence, as clearly we have, but only where change doesn't affect the Prime Directive - european integration.

So, enough is enough. If the other 27 want integration, so be it. But as a nation, the UK doesn't.

Then, there's economic impact.

My first point is that successive PMs refused to let Brexit planning go ahead, so blame it on them, be it Cameron (remainer) or May (remainer).

The next point is that the EU irself cwn take some of the blame, too. May, to be fair to her, wanted and fought for a twin-track approach, one team negotiating exit terms, and the other, the future relationship, i.e. trade, as well as all the other bits like citizens rights, security co-operation, etc and, in order to control processes, the EU refused point blank to talk about the future until the exit terms were settled.

Now, the biggest single blockage is that damned backstop. and that is a function of future rekationships.It will ONLY apply if whatever future relationship we get doesn't involve a comprehensive free trade agreement, and but for EU insistence on a linear process, we could have been negotiating that for two, or even three years by this point, perhaps rendering the backstop completely academic.

It's hard to do a lot of the prep work when it involves negotiating with another party that simply will not engage on many issues.


Has the process been done well? Hell no. And I am certainly no Theresa May fan. But we also cannot put the decision, or planning for it, in a position where it depends on those (be it May or the EU) who don't want it to happen in tbe first place.

What we did have, prior to the referendum, was about 18 months of argument where remainers could gave raised all these issues that trouble you, but didn't. Remember, this started prior to the 2015 general election when Cameron, fearing UKIP pressure and more Tory defections, felt he had to offer a referendum. As I say, early 2015. We're now four years down the line. How much planning and considerstion if issues do you want, that couldn't be done in 4 years?

Personally, having decided to jump into a coldish swimming pool, I prefer to just jump in, and get over the shock quickly, rather than torture myself millimetre at a time. And before anyone says it, no, the pool isn't deep enough to drown in and besides, I'm a good swimmer and don't need, or want, EU arm bands.

[Ttaskmaster]

Personally, having decided to jump into a coldish swimming pool, I prefer to just jump in, and get over the shock quickly, rather than torture myself millimetre at a time. And before anyone says it, no, the pool isn't deep enough to drown in and besides, I'm a good swimmer and don't need, or want, EU arm bands.

But you have perhaps failed to consider how many people have been/still are piddling in that pool, as well as the fact that any chlorine or other cleaning agent needs to be imported......

[Saracen999]

I have a clear sign ....

"There is no P in my ool. Please keep it that way".

I have stocked up on chlorine, etc, and my ool is just fine.

[ik9000]

Personally, having decided to jump into a coldish swimming pool, I prefer to just jump in, and get over the shock quickly, rather than torture myself millimetre at a time. And before anyone says it, no, the pool isn't deep enough to drown in and besides, I'm a good swimmer and don't need, or want, EU arm bands.

But have you considered that there is a risk of thermal shock and cardiac arrest? Many people die from cold water shock swimming every year. Particularly the older and less fit and able. It's fine to say "it won't happen to me" but what evidence have you got to say that it's safe to do so?

As for the united states of europe - I might not agree with continuing political union and a federal EU superstate, but it isn't the worst case on offer here. Have you not stopped to think that this spineless bunch of MuPpetS so poorly negotiating our brexit will be the same lot who will run in desperation for a trade deal with uncle Sam? Have openly said that is a priority? Uncle Sam is not one for giving anything away unless it suits the US agenda. So with Brexit we'll either end up a vassall state of the EU or a vassall state of the US. Don't tell me we won't, we won't have a (practicable) choice and it'll be hunting season for the big and powerful nations. We'll be caught with our trousers down and we'll end up screwed by one of them. Given the choice I'd rather the EU. At least their worker rights and food laws are worth having. But the tories will salivate at the prospects of US employment law and privatising the NHS to US firms and that will be that. I am most depressed at the prospect.