How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)
Discussion
Amateurish said:
andymadmak said:
Do keep up at the back!
In my opinion, they should have stood on the basis of cancel brexit. In any event, everyone seems to think they did.
PurpleMoonlight said:
What new advice?
That the UK can use Article 62 of the Vienna Convention as a legal basis to unilaterally withdraw from the backstop.Essentially, rather than just relying on the joint interpretive instrument and having to prove bad faith, we claim that the EU holding us in the backstop is an unforeseeable change of circumstance and therefore invoke Article 62 to withdraw.
Which is kind of like getting out of an exam by blowing up the exam hall. It is also almost guaranteed to fail, as attempts to invoke Article 62 in the past have. If the fall of the Soviet Union was not regarded as an unforeseeable change of circumstance, I think we may have trouble arguing that the backstop is.
psi310398 said:
Ta.That's paywalled but I found a summary elsewhere.
I note prominent leavers have already rubbished it though.
alfie2244 said:
Don't you think UKIP may be moving that way and leaving a hole for a new"not so far" right party to fill.....perhaps with Brexit as it's main, if not only issue?
Maybe even with Brexit in it's name.This smearing of people that voted for Brexit as far right and what not is pretty pathetic.
mattmurdock said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
What new advice?
That the UK can use Article 62 of the Vienna Convention as a legal basis to unilaterally withdraw from the backstop.Essentially, rather than just relying on the joint interpretive instrument and having to prove bad faith, we claim that the EU holding us in the backstop is an unforeseeable change of circumstance and therefore invoke Article 62 to withdraw.
Which is kind of like getting out of an exam by blowing up the exam hall. It is also almost guaranteed to fail, as attempts to invoke Article 62 in the past have. If the fall of the Soviet Union was not regarded as an unforeseeable change of circumstance, I think we may have trouble arguing that the backstop is.
jonnyb said:
mattmurdock said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
What new advice?
That the UK can use Article 62 of the Vienna Convention as a legal basis to unilaterally withdraw from the backstop.Essentially, rather than just relying on the joint interpretive instrument and having to prove bad faith, we claim that the EU holding us in the backstop is an unforeseeable change of circumstance and therefore invoke Article 62 to withdraw.
Which is kind of like getting out of an exam by blowing up the exam hall. It is also almost guaranteed to fail, as attempts to invoke Article 62 in the past have. If the fall of the Soviet Union was not regarded as an unforeseeable change of circumstance, I think we may have trouble arguing that the backstop is.
I don't think much of the ERG is really looking for a ladder, they're looking to leave the EU.
mattmurdock said:
That the UK can use Article 62 of the Vienna Convention as a legal basis to unilaterally withdraw from the backstop.
Essentially, rather than just relying on the joint interpretive instrument and having to prove bad faith, we claim that the EU holding us in the backstop is an unforeseeable change of circumstance and therefore invoke Article 62 to withdraw.
Which is kind of like getting out of an exam by blowing up the exam hall. It is also almost guaranteed to fail, as attempts to invoke Article 62 in the past have. If the fall of the Soviet Union was not regarded as an unforeseeable change of circumstance, I think we may have trouble arguing that the backstop is.
Except it is publicly recorded everywhere that he previously said we could be locked in so 'unforeseeable' would appear to be somewhere between an embellishment and a down right lie.Essentially, rather than just relying on the joint interpretive instrument and having to prove bad faith, we claim that the EU holding us in the backstop is an unforeseeable change of circumstance and therefore invoke Article 62 to withdraw.
Which is kind of like getting out of an exam by blowing up the exam hall. It is also almost guaranteed to fail, as attempts to invoke Article 62 in the past have. If the fall of the Soviet Union was not regarded as an unforeseeable change of circumstance, I think we may have trouble arguing that the backstop is.
mattmurdock said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
What new advice?
That the UK can use Article 62 of the Vienna Convention as a legal basis to unilaterally withdraw from the backstop.Essentially, rather than just relying on the joint interpretive instrument and having to prove bad faith, we claim that the EU holding us in the backstop is an unforeseeable change of circumstance and therefore invoke Article 62 to withdraw.
Which is kind of like getting out of an exam by blowing up the exam hall. It is also almost guaranteed to fail, as attempts to invoke Article 62 in the past have. If the fall of the Soviet Union was not regarded as an unforeseeable change of circumstance, I think we may have trouble arguing that the backstop is.
I'll wager that if the deal gets voted down by the ERG/DUP, the media will then blame same for it all falling to pieces.
psi310398 said:
As we have our crystal balls out, might one possible unforeseen consequence of entering into the WA or remaining locked to the EU be to provoke the rise of an English independence movement?
The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
What a great idea. The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
If May's deal does get through I doubt that'll be the great outcome that May thinks it will be. To some extent it's the easy option for Parliament now, but does anyone really believe that something that has little support with the public and was thrashed repeatedly in Parliament has any legitimacy? I don't think even putting it to a third vote has legitimacy given Erskine May prohibits another go anyway.
It won't survive an electoral cycle if it passes, it just prolongs the pissing about.
It won't survive an electoral cycle if it passes, it just prolongs the pissing about.
Vanden Saab said:
psi310398 said:
As we have our crystal balls out, might one possible unforeseen consequence of entering into the WA or remaining locked to the EU be to provoke the rise of an English independence movement?
The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
What a great idea. The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
don'tbesilly said:
Vanden Saab said:
psi310398 said:
As we have our crystal balls out, might one possible unforeseen consequence of entering into the WA or remaining locked to the EU be to provoke the rise of an English independence movement?
The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
What a great idea. The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
don'tbesilly said:
Yet the ERG will get the blame for voting down May's deal for the third time, because Cox is desperate to get the DUP onside, and then the ERG will follow suit.
I'll wager that if the deal gets voted down by the ERG/DUP, the media will then blame same for it all falling to pieces.
Or credit. I'll wager that if the deal gets voted down by the ERG/DUP, the media will then blame same for it all falling to pieces.
The WA is pretty universally seen as a turd. And full membership is clearly preferable to colony status.
I were ERG, I'd rather remain (revoke A50) and cause trouble from within than sign up indefinitely to the provisions of the WA and associated bits of paper. There's nothing stopping the running of a 'treason of the clerks' campaign and going for Brexit again after a GE, possibly in coalition with TBP. It took the best part of 50 years to get the last referendum - taking another ten and causing Brussels any amount of problems in the meantime does not seem terribly unattractive, compared to the WA.
And whatever happens, including a clean departure on the 29th, there will be unfinished business. Better to have open options than closed ones IMV.
don'tbesilly said:
Vanden Saab said:
psi310398 said:
As we have our crystal balls out, might one possible unforeseen consequence of entering into the WA or remaining locked to the EU be to provoke the rise of an English independence movement?
The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
What a great idea. The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.
One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.
Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.
At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.
But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.
What an absolute winner, why on earth has no-one thought of it before?
I know this has been quoted multiple times but...
It's true that the second referendum campaign seems to be a Remain campaign. This is probably due to people who voted leave assuming that everyone holds the same view they do and don't think it's necessary. Personally I'm inclined to support it because of the political mess the country is in- the result was so close that a clear direction wasn't immediately obvious, and this was only increased by the outcome of the General Election. Any second referendum would have to address this by being much clearer- whatever wins out of remain/WA/no deal, that's an end to it. The problem is there doesn't seem to be a question that can produce this certainty. In all honesty I think a second referendum would probably produce another vote for leave, only hopefully with a preferred direction out of the mess we're currently in. I still won't like it but at least there would be agreement rather than the infighting we're currently stuck in.
biggles330d said:
I'd love for this to be pushed to a General Election and the Lib Dems come riding in on a single issue policy of withdrawing A50 and abandoning Brexit altogether.
With near 50% of the population having voted to remain, which is a pretty clear and easy to understand concept, and 50% voting to exit but on a total rainbow of flavours that were never defined at the outset, have never been defined since and appear to be at the root of the current chaos as nobody can agree, from Hard Exit no deal to a deal based Exit as close to remaining as makes little difference apart from loosing the ability to influence anything but having some control of immigration.. the Lib Dems could walk a general election with a massive majority as the 'leave' vote was split between a disgruntled electorate who have lost all trust and faith in the Conservatives for creating this whole mess and the horror filled prospect of Corbyn riding in on his bicycle and loony left ideology putting the death nail into the country.
I'd vote Lib Dem every day of the week for that. They couldn't do much damage in 5 years and we'd rid ourselves of this curse of Brexit on a properly democratic decision... a General Election.
People seem to think that everyone who voted to remain holds the same view. Whilst there aren't as many differing views as the leave side, there were some. I met someone who was going to vote remain and wanted closer integration- removal of the op-outs, adopt the Euro, Schengen, the whole nine yards. I voted remain but hoped that Cameron would continue his efforts to reform the institution. Conversely on the leave side I knew people who voted leave as a protest vote and didn't expect it to win, others who wanted a return to the EEC and others who wanted something similar to the WA. Presumably there are others who voted leave and wanted no deal, and others who were so anti EU they didn't care if the UK leaving cost Gibraltar, NI and Scotland. I think the only reason the divisions in the leave vote are so stark is because of the result of the referendum.With near 50% of the population having voted to remain, which is a pretty clear and easy to understand concept, and 50% voting to exit but on a total rainbow of flavours that were never defined at the outset, have never been defined since and appear to be at the root of the current chaos as nobody can agree, from Hard Exit no deal to a deal based Exit as close to remaining as makes little difference apart from loosing the ability to influence anything but having some control of immigration.. the Lib Dems could walk a general election with a massive majority as the 'leave' vote was split between a disgruntled electorate who have lost all trust and faith in the Conservatives for creating this whole mess and the horror filled prospect of Corbyn riding in on his bicycle and loony left ideology putting the death nail into the country.
I'd vote Lib Dem every day of the week for that. They couldn't do much damage in 5 years and we'd rid ourselves of this curse of Brexit on a properly democratic decision... a General Election.
It's true that the second referendum campaign seems to be a Remain campaign. This is probably due to people who voted leave assuming that everyone holds the same view they do and don't think it's necessary. Personally I'm inclined to support it because of the political mess the country is in- the result was so close that a clear direction wasn't immediately obvious, and this was only increased by the outcome of the General Election. Any second referendum would have to address this by being much clearer- whatever wins out of remain/WA/no deal, that's an end to it. The problem is there doesn't seem to be a question that can produce this certainty. In all honesty I think a second referendum would probably produce another vote for leave, only hopefully with a preferred direction out of the mess we're currently in. I still won't like it but at least there would be agreement rather than the infighting we're currently stuck in.
alfie2244 said:
Nickgnome said:
I think if a far right party sprung up at least we would be able to see the real mindset of what I hope would be a few of the population but probably in reality many more.
Visibility of these people is a good thing.
Don't you think UKIP may be moving that way and leaving a hole for a new"not so far" right party to fill.....perhaps with Brexit as it's main, if not only issue?Visibility of these people is a good thing.
mattmurdock said:
Well, indeed, we are where we are because of some poor decision making, and a snap GE where clearly domestic issues rather than Brexit were the deciding factors.
The issue with the backstop is that instead of taking some time to think about the consequences of the Irish border and preparing solutions, the government triggered Article 50 in haste. I totally understand why they did it, because they committed to implementing the referendum decision, and you can't really say that we are implementing it if we haven't triggered Article 50.
This left us in the situation where the Irish border was not properly considered, and when the government then insisted on red lines which were more of the 'hard leave' spectrum rather than the 'soft leave' spectrum (again understandable, you can't really leave the EU and yet still remain in a number of its institutions) the EU responded appropriately in drawing its own lines around protection of the Single Market. Thus an impasse where it was not possible to solve the Irish border in the time allowed without an 'insurance' backstop which by its very nature must NOT be able to be unilaterally bypassed by either party without an extremely good reason.
So, because the Withdrawal Agreement is adamant that we must actually leave, we have ended up in a situation where legally we cannot actually leave without a breakdown in negotiations. Excuse me while I polish my crystal ball, but I honestly cannot see how it would have ended up with any other outcome given the same starting conditions.
Having a committed Leave MP in charge would have simply led to pretty much the same agreement, but with bigger divisions in Parliament, as leaving with no deal was not going to happen. Having a more collegiate or consensus based approach from the beginning would have led to watering down of the red lines, leading to potential inclusion in a more Norway or Swiss style approach where we were still part of the Single Market with FMOL and being rule takers, which would also not satisfy the definition of leave.
Based on this, I absolutely believe that May's deal is the most pragmatic leave solution and that the backstop will be resolved some point down the line during the future negotiations, and that those people who are strictly opposed to that are doing so out of ideological reasons related to their personal hatred of the EU, rather than out of any logical assessment.
thanks for that reply, a good post. i am open to being convinced that the backstop can be resolved properly down the line. there have been a few suggestions re modern tech on this very thread. trouble is with the emphasis we seen on legality, constitution, i dotting and t crossing (even here in this thread regarding the referendum being advisory only ,not legally binding yet the withdrawal agreement not legally ending in the uk leaving without consent of another is not seen as a genuine issue by some, not you i may add) during the debate i am not convinced that leaving is the main motivation behind many of those that support the agreement in its current form.The issue with the backstop is that instead of taking some time to think about the consequences of the Irish border and preparing solutions, the government triggered Article 50 in haste. I totally understand why they did it, because they committed to implementing the referendum decision, and you can't really say that we are implementing it if we haven't triggered Article 50.
This left us in the situation where the Irish border was not properly considered, and when the government then insisted on red lines which were more of the 'hard leave' spectrum rather than the 'soft leave' spectrum (again understandable, you can't really leave the EU and yet still remain in a number of its institutions) the EU responded appropriately in drawing its own lines around protection of the Single Market. Thus an impasse where it was not possible to solve the Irish border in the time allowed without an 'insurance' backstop which by its very nature must NOT be able to be unilaterally bypassed by either party without an extremely good reason.
So, because the Withdrawal Agreement is adamant that we must actually leave, we have ended up in a situation where legally we cannot actually leave without a breakdown in negotiations. Excuse me while I polish my crystal ball, but I honestly cannot see how it would have ended up with any other outcome given the same starting conditions.
Having a committed Leave MP in charge would have simply led to pretty much the same agreement, but with bigger divisions in Parliament, as leaving with no deal was not going to happen. Having a more collegiate or consensus based approach from the beginning would have led to watering down of the red lines, leading to potential inclusion in a more Norway or Swiss style approach where we were still part of the Single Market with FMOL and being rule takers, which would also not satisfy the definition of leave.
Based on this, I absolutely believe that May's deal is the most pragmatic leave solution and that the backstop will be resolved some point down the line during the future negotiations, and that those people who are strictly opposed to that are doing so out of ideological reasons related to their personal hatred of the EU, rather than out of any logical assessment.
it really does come down to personal definition of a bad deal i suppose. if you believe may's deal is not just the only deal we could end up with (i genuinely believe that now) but a good deal , i can understand , if not agree, with supporting it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff