How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[olimain]

soupdragon1 said:

olimain said:

I love this "if you're so sure let's prove it" and "what are you scared of" rhetoric with regard to a 2nd ref - reminds me of being back at school.

Even if we did have a referendum - what do we put on the ballot paper?

There must be at least 15 different versions of Brexit being bandied about by various politicians at the moment - do we stick all 15 of them in, plus option 16 - to remain? Its a crazy situation we find ourselves in....

I believe they just want to have two options again:

[anonymous-user]

TEKNOPUG said:

That's an utterly stupid fking comment. What possible relevance is there to whether I know the complete skillset of every MP and Civil Servant in the country? Why is it my responsibilty to annoint the Lord of Brexit? Have I now become the Supreme Ruler of the UK? In which case I nominate myself to achieve the Brexit that I think people voted for..... presumably you'll be responsible for enacting my succession? Be sure to let me know when you've done it.

And as for the ascertion that I can't complain about our political leaders.......the electorate really should know their place shouldn't they and let their betters get on with things unhindered by scrutiny.....

I can see why you are not a fan of democracy.

You are the one complaining that the negotiations are being run by Remainers. If you don't have any other options you can't really complain.

[TEKNOPUG]

Mrr T said:

TEKNOPUG said:

The people voted to leave the SM, the CU, the ECJ and FOM. It was all laid out in the £9m Government leaflet exactly what "Leave" meant. Therefore the default position should have been to leave with "no (trade) deal" and then anything negotiated would be a bonus.

As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....

I am confused by this. At the time the pamphlet was sent leavers all said it was rubbish and all part of project fear. Now leavers say it forms the basis of the decision to leave the SM and CU. Not sure you fully understand hypocrisy.

I don't speak on behalf of "Leavers" any more than you do for "Remainers". Seems like you don't fully understand massive sweeping generalisations.

[Crackie]

Coolbanana said:

The EU want the UK to reconsider and, ideally, remain as Members. They will help facilitate this, as I have oft posted in these Threads.

If you've oft posted this, you've hopefully thought about it a great deal. The UK are the awkward, difficult ones on the periphery of the EU who have negotiated special status and vetos and rebates and propriety exemptions from several of the major protocols. The EU is currently more unpopular in the UK than at any time since its inception; why are they so keen for us to stay in and go so far as to actively facilitate the UK remaining as members?

Coolbanana said:

TM's Deal is the 'hardest' of Brexits you are going to get.

Probably but we'll see.

Coolbanana said:

but should consider that they have been wrong about everything since the start

Dim generalisations like that do you no favours; you assume too much. What have leavers, all of them, been wrong about? It's played out pretty much as I'd expected since May was appointed and her alliance with OR was exposed.

Coolbanana said:

of the Brexit Farce

Coolbanana said:

will continue to be wrong.

Wrong about what? More assumptions about ideas that 17.4 million people might or might not have in the future.

Coolbanana said:

Eventually, Leavers will have to accept their Dream is over.

Your choice of the word dream and using a capital is telling.

Coolbanana said:

At least until they can muster support for another go in the Future.

If the UK does eventually remain then, of course, there will be ongoing campaigns until parliament / government does what it was elected to do i.e. enact the will of the majority in a democracy. Recent events have exposed the EU's MO to many who were not interested or engaged prior to Brexit; they now understand about May's deceitfulness, the clandestine nature of Selmayr's appointment, Soros' pervasive influence, EU army, T2 risk, the reasons driving political unrest in Sweden, Greece, Italy, France etc etc. Do you think, if the result is remain this time, that the result of the ensuing referendum will only be 52:48?

Some of your posts in November were pragmatic and some of the best in Vol 5 but recently you've returned to your alter ego. Disappointing.

Edited by Crackie on Thursday 6th December 15:12

[TEKNOPUG]

Ghibli said:

TEKNOPUG said:

That's an utterly stupid fking comment. What possible relevance is there to whether I know the complete skillset of every MP and Civil Servant in the country? Why is it my responsibilty to annoint the Lord of Brexit? Have I now become the Supreme Ruler of the UK? In which case I nominate myself to achieve the Brexit that I think people voted for..... presumably you'll be responsible for enacting my succession? Be sure to let me know when you've done it.

And as for the ascertion that I can't complain about our political leaders.......the electorate really should know their place shouldn't they and let their betters get on with things unhindered by scrutiny.....

I can see why you are not a fan of democracy.

You are the one complaining that the negotiations are being run by Remainers. If you don't have any other options you can't really complain.

I've already given you an option; me. If you can't think of a way of making that happen, I don't think you should be complaining.

[Mrr T]

RalphyM said:

Agree with most of this, except the Withdrawal Act does not give powers to amend. Henry VIII powers allow amendments to secondary legislation and statuatory instruments to be made by the executive without referal to Parliament but they cannot be used to amend the Primary legislation that granted them. If you think about it, this is quite logical otherwise the Exec could grant themselves unlimited powers!

My point on 1 though is that you can't do 2 without 1. Otherwise you have two contradictory pieces of legislation which would not get through. "Odd" isn't a phrase that should be used when dealing with legislation. I can see lawyers getting very rich while various challenges to it. Meanwhile, time marches inexoriably on.

Check out the Withdrawal Act Section 8 and 9. It gives the government extensive powers to create legislation without parliamentary approval. Interesting times.

[anonymous-user]

TEKNOPUG said:

I've already given you an option; me. If you can't think of a way of making that happen, I don't think you should be complaining.

You could charge in the negotiations on a unicorn demanding cake.

Good luck.

[RalphyM]

Mrr T said:

Check out the Withdrawal Act Section 8 and 9. It gives the government extensive powers to create legislation without parliamentary approval. Interesting times.

8 is not relevant it specifically deals with retained EU Law.

9 again is not relevant it only gives powers towards implementing a withdrawal agreement. No agreement means no powers under this section.

[TEKNOPUG]

Ghibli said:

TEKNOPUG said:

I've already given you an option; me. If you can't think of a way of making that happen, I don't think you should be complaining.

You could charge in the negotiations on a unicorn demanding cake.

Good luck.

I'd have spent the previous 2 years making preparations for no deal and WTO. Not waste 2 years subverting the referendum result and trying to sell stale bread to the electorate.

But given your contempt for the electorate you'd no doubt advocate letting them eat cake....

[SpeckledJim]

Ghibli said:

SpeckledJim said:

The awkward thing is that the leaflet was Remain's threat to leavers. "If you vote leave, these are all the terrible things that'll happen."

We weren't supposed to say "Well, they sound ok, let's do it".

The architects of the whole problem were the over-confident foccacia and rocket remain campaign who simply didn't see this coming.

How can the leaflet be a threat to leavers if it was what they voted for?

You'll understand if I don't engage you.

[crankedup]

Mrr T said:

TEKNOPUG said:

The people voted to leave the SM, the CU, the ECJ and FOM. It was all laid out in the £9m Government leaflet exactly what "Leave" meant. Therefore the default position should have been to leave with "no (trade) deal" and then anything negotiated would be a bonus.

As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....

I am confused by this. At the time the pamphlet was sent leavers all said it was rubbish and all part of project fear. Now leavers say it forms the basis of the decision to leave the SM and CU. Not sure you fully understand hypocrisy.

Very fertile imagination you have.

[MYOB]

Balmoral said:

If it had gone 52/48 for remain, and Farage et al were calling for a 'Peoples Vote' I think it is pretty clear what the response of the remain block would be.

Just what I was thinking.

[Mrr T]

RalphyM said:

Mrr T said:

Check out the Withdrawal Act Section 8 and 9. It gives the government extensive powers to create legislation without parliamentary approval. Interesting times.

8 is not relevant it specifically deals with retained EU Law.

9 again is not relevant it only gives powers towards implementing a withdrawal agreement. No agreement means no powers under this section.

I quoted both sections because you did not seem aware of the extent the Withdrawal Act gave the government the ability to create legislation without reference to parliament.

I could certainly make a case that you could use Section 9 to change the date of withdrawal while a withdrawal agreement was finalised. More difficult for an Art 50 revocation I agree.

However, the real question is does the Withdrawal Act put the UK in breach of EU treaties?

[LDN]

crankedup said:

Very fertile imagination you have.

Yoda, is that you?!

[toppstuff]

fk it.

I’m gonna buy a house in Ireland.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

I quoted both sections because you did not seem aware of the extent the Withdrawal Act gave the government the ability to create legislation without reference to parliament.

I could certainly make a case that you could use Section 9 to change the date of withdrawal while a withdrawal agreement was finalised. More difficult for an Art 50 revocation I agree.

However, the real question is does the Withdrawal Act put the UK in breach of EU treaties?

There was a big fight in parliament to enshrine the leave date in primary legislation. Do you not remember that?

That fight was won by the government.

There is nothing in the bill that allows that date to be changed.

You thinking it exists doesn't make it so.

To change the date needs new law.

[RalphyM]

Mrr T said:

I quoted both sections because you did not seem aware of the extent the Withdrawal Act gave the government the ability to create legislation without reference to parliament.

I could certainly make a case that you could use Section 9 to change the date of withdrawal while a withdrawal agreement was finalised. More difficult for an Art 50 revocation I agree.

However, the real question is does the Withdrawal Act put the UK in breach of EU treaties?

Sorry, there is no way that Section 9 can be used to change the date. It is explicitly about "implementing the withdrawal agreement". If there is no agreement then there are no powers. It also states that this section lapses after exit day.

The sceond part is indeed a good question. If the A50 period was extended without any change to the Withdrawal Act, there would be a conflict between the 2. In a sense, both you and Paul are correct. There would be nothing in UK law to enforce the treaty requirements. It would certainly be subject to legal challenge by the EU. As long as the 2 were the same I don't think a challenge would be successful however as soon as there was any divergence then it would.

However, the other thing that is very relevant in this case is that the EU would be required to honour all of their obligations as well. It would open up a huge can of worms. At any point, if the EU did not include the UK as a full member in all discussions. It could be open to legal challenge by the UK.

Edited by RalphyM on Thursday 6th December 12:24

[The Dangerous Elk]

toppstuff said:

fk it.

I’m gonna buy a house in Ireland.

Do try to get one without an internet connection old chap.

[toppstuff]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Do try to get one without an internet connection old chap.

No chance. I love tinter-net , me.

[The Dangerous Elk]

toppstuff said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

Do try to get one without an internet connection old chap.

No chance. I love tinder-net , me.

ftfu