|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Brexit - Should they stay or should they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Then why did PaulK call it a "Parliamentary" vote of non-confidence in Message 360? Surely what you're talking about would be a party vote or a caucus vote. Because they're two different things. The party no-confidence vote was last week. Now Corbyn's proposing a vote in Parliament, in an apparent attempt to embarrass the Tories without achieving anything. I'm thinking Corbyn's actually quite looking forward to Britain crashing out of the EU - he comes from the old left of the party who were always opposed to the whole project. But as Tangle says he's being mealy-mouthed about the whole thing. He wants to appeal to remainers by letting the Tories take the blame for Brexit while avoiding alienating pro-leave Labour voters by actually taking a position. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I know that. I'm just saying that in Canada a party vote would not happen in Parliament, which is why it would not be called a Parliamentary vote. The party vote didn't happen in parliament, and was not called a parliamentary vote. I seem to be struggling with clarity here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I don't have a dog in this fight and despite some my own concerns with the EU, I was still in favor of Britain staying. My main rational is that Britain was the foil for Germany, which is essentially the defacto 'leader' of the EU. Without them, Germany would have even more clout over the smaller, weaker countries. And Brussels is essentially just their puppet. This is kind of what I have been thinking (especially since I will still be living in the EU after Brexit); though not quite as you put it. The idea that Brussels is a puppet of Germany is absurd; and Germany by itself cannot bully smaller countries effectively. The way the qualified majority voting system works, it takes an alliance of two of the big three member states to be an effective bully - and even then the third big state only needs the support of a few smaller countries to block them. But, one of the big three is about to leave. With the UK gone, there is no longer any possible four-country blocking veto to a Franco-German proposal in the Council. The minimum set of countries that could veto a joint Franco-German project would be Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania and the Netherlands. If some of these larger countries are on board - it takes a lot of the smaller member states to veto. Now, maybe some will actually be quite happy - seeing this as making the EU quite efficient. And maybe I'm getting more concerned than necessary since the Council can't act alone. But I quite liked the fact that the way the EU functioned it was hard to do anything that France, Germany and Britain were not all on board with - the differing political traditions of the three countries has tended to keep European policies relatively moderate despite the large number of extremists in the European Parliament. The only time this bothers me is the budget; since the European budget works quite differently to how the US Federal government manages things. There's no shutdown when you can't agree - the previous budget rolls over until a new one is settled on. France has for two consecutive budget periods led a blocking minority veto against significant reform of the biggest wastes of European funds, like the outdated Common Agricultural Policy. Since the blocking countries are happy to avoid change, they don't suffer by delaying the budget, and the rest of the Union has been forced to capitulate to their demands. With the UK out, one of the most powerful voices for reform on this front is gone. France and Poland will now find it even easier to resist any reform. In fairness, this is the kind of thing that probably led to a few Brexit votes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
As I understand, Her Majesty has the power of Royal Prerogative which allows her to step in and change governments, select a Prime Minister of her own choosing regardless of the Parliament's makeup and vote. As Commander in Chief of the armed services she could seize the Parliament and the government buildings, make/break any foreign treaties she so happened to desire. She could actually behead Theresa May and replace her. She could dissolve Parliament and appoint any person she chooses to be PM. She legally has such power. Not really. The government needs to be able to command a majority vote in the House of Commons; so the Queen cannot appoint someone Parliament would not accept. Much of the British constitution is customary; and not actually codified into law anywhere; but this applies to the crown's prerogatives as much as Parliament's. If the Queen can ignore the customary powers of Parliament because they're not codified, then her own powers do not really exist wither. More significantly, there is substantial codified statute law limiting the powers of the crown; most notably the Bill of Rights of 1689 - which was enacted into law the last time Parliament felt a king was getting a bit big for his boots. The Bill of Rights explicitly denies the Queen the power to do what you say. She cannot break treaties without the consent of Parliament; for example. Nor can she dissolve Parliament at whim - that may have been a legally open question at one point; but the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (2011) clearly states that only the House of Commons has the authority to dissolve itself. While the Queen is, indeed, officially head of the armed forces, I'm not sure of the exact conditions around which she can exercise this power. Important to note, however, is that the Bill of Rights also makes it illegal for the armed forces to exist without the consent of Parliament. The most recent authorisation for the continued existence of the army was the Armed Forces Act 2016. It states very clearly that it cannot be extended beyond 2021 without Parliamentary approval. Now, when it comes to something as drastic as the monarch launching some sort of coup d'etat; obviously the opinion of the populace and the people with guns is more important than legal niceties; but on a strictly legal basis the Queen does not have even technical or theoretical powers to dissolve Parliament, nor to appoint governments without Parliamentary approval. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Based on the latest voting in Parliament, it appears 'No Deal' has been 'officially' taken off the table. I can't say for certain if that is binding or not It's not. It's an advisory opinion with no legislative force, and thus is irrelevant. Parliament did not vote for anything. They voted that there should be an non-specified alternative arrangement to the backstop agreement. The EU has made it clear there isn't one. Even substantive vote for something lost. No deal it is, then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
As far as this "backstop" deal on Ireland goes what is the EU position, what is the British position, what are the reasonable options available, please? The EU position is that an open border with the EU requires the country on the other side to conform to certain EU market regulations; to prevent unfair competition or the importation of goods that don't meet legal requirements of the European common market. There are many ways to achieve this. First, the UK could stay in the European Economic Area (like Norway). The British government has ruled this out since it's very much like being in the EU without voting rights, and would require the continuation of free movement. Second, the UK could remain in the customs union while being outside the EU - like Turkey or some of the European microstates. The British government has ruled this out because if would limit the ability of Britain to negotiate tariff agreements independently with third nations. Third, the UK could come to some sort of separate, bilateral trade agreement like Switzerland did - but an agreement acceptable to the EU would break many of the same redlines as the previous suggestions (Switzerland accepts free movement, for example). The backstop idea was essentially that Northern Ireland would remain in the customs union unless and until some other idea occurs to someone - meaning there would be customs checks imposed between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Parliament has rejected this idea. The British government's current position is that we should solve this problem by... er... look! A blimp! /me runs away
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Do I need my passport to fly from London to Paris?
Yes. You already need a passport to fly from London to Paris. The UK is not part of the Schengen treaty; which is what guarantees open borders in the sense of the border just being a line you walk across with no security or checks. The UK has 'open borders' with the EU in the sense that there are no tarriffs and there is free movement - anyone who's legally in France can cross the Channel, but they still go through passport control. And for flying you need passports anyway for security reasons (or at least a state-issued ID). UK and Ireland do have literally open borders in the sense of no checks (for now); but that's separate to Schengen. That's not to say nothing will change with regards crossing the Channel, though. The contents of all them thousands of trucks that cross over every day will suddenly be subject to duties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I think that the real problem is that there is no acceptable solution to the Irish border. If there was a way of keeping it open that would be acceptable to Parliament the EU would go for it. The point of the backstop is to give Britain time to come up with a solution and show it can work. But this problem with that is who gets to decide when a solution has been reached. That's what stumped everything. You could have got a majority in Parliament for a backstop which the UK was allowed to end unilaterally; but the UK won't agree to that because it allows Britain to stop it without coming up with a solution acceptable to the rest of Europe. Maybe, when drafting the Lisbon treaty, someone should have put some thought into how a country leaves the EU; rather than just clarifying a legal process allowing it to happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Gibraltar doesn’t have a long fiddly land border with the EU, nor a history of violent unrest with a substantial minority wanting reunification with Spain. In short it’s much easier for the EU not to make waves about Gibraltar. I can’t say that will stay the case if May reopens negotiations and annoys the negotiators enough. At the least the Spanish might see it as an opportunity. Gibraltar is a much simpler issue. The idea of Gibraltar having a different status to the UK is a totally different one to N. Ireland having a different status to Britain, since Gibraltar already has a different status. It's not part of the UK, it's not in the EU customs union, and the border with Spain is not open; so these vexing questions do not arise. Despite a few belligerent voices in Spain, the Spanish government has rather sensibly agreed that they will treat negotiations on the status of Gibraltar as separate from the UK withdrawal agreement; so it's not holding anything up like the Irish border question is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Is there any thought to maybe the EU, unhappy as they may be, might find it advantageous to work with Her Majesty’s government to smooth over an official Brexit, knowing full well Britain actually isn’t going anywhere economically and in a few election cycles they’ll be back officially as well? I think there is little chance of Britain rejoining the EU in the forseeable future. After all the rigmarole involved in leaving, at least a generation or two needs to pass. Who knows if the EU will even still be here by then? Edited by caffeine, : Contradictory and redundant sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Yeh, the vote tonight on the deal on the table will be lost and the vote to leave without a deal tomorrow will also be lost. And there we have it, Parliament just voted for.... well, nothing. Since the vote on no deal creates no legally binding consequences. As I type, Corbyn is discussing that he intends to meet with Tory MPs to find a solution of some kind, whilst being vague on what it is. Apparently unaware that Brexit day is a little over two weeks away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
If a deal doesn’t pass the default is to exit with now deal, presumably on 12 April. The default exit date remains March 29th (ie. Friday). That is still currently a matter of British law. The significance of April 12th is that this is the date preparations for the European elections need to start, so the EU Council's conditions for an extension is that they expect to know the plan by then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
So crash and burn. Isn't April 12 now the default crash-out date? No - Friday is still the default crash-out date, until such time as Parliament votes to change it. That much they should be able to manage before the week's out. They have until April 12th to decide what to do with any extension they vote for. The European Council expects a plan by that point. Either they're supposed to have the current deal approved; or they start preparing for EU elections (in which case they're supposed to have a plan for going forward - whether that involves a new referendum or cancelling Brexit or whatever). If they don't acheive either of those things, then the UK leaves without a deal but, legally speaking, the date of that is not yet 100% clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
So after yesterday's series of indicative votes we finally have some clarity on the way forward!
Parliament is clearly opposed to the Prime Minister's Brexit deal. Parliament is clearly opposed to all possible alternative Brexit deals. Parliament is clearly opposed to Brexit without a deal. Parliament is clearly opposed to stopping Brexit. How far we've come after two years of discussion and negotiation. The mother of all Parliaments could teach Trump a thing or two about the art of the deal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
The conservative MP Ben Bradley is in the House of Commons. He voted to remain, then became a Brexiteer, then voted against the deal, then voted for the deal, then said he’d struggled to back the deal again but now says he will back the deal He's the MP for my hometown. He holds the distinction of being the only Tory elected to represent Mansfield since the establishment of democratic elections. In fairness to him, the Leave vote in that area was overwhelming.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024