Brexit Begins

[Aimless]

There's a legitimate argument that the unionists oppose setting up a border between NI and rUK, and it would be questionable to impose a border between the two without unionist consent. However, this can be circumvented through a whole-UK backstop. What's more, NI voted against leaving in the first place—and NI parties later campaigned on ensuring a very high level of participation in the single market upon the UK's departure. There is no majority in NI for a no deal brexit, just as there was no majority in NI for Brexit period; nevertheless, the UK, demonstrating blatant disregard for the spirit of the GFA—as well as for the concerns of NI voters—decided to press ahead with the dumbest possible implementation of Brexit, knowing full well it would screw NI over. So when some sanctimonious Spectator-fapping tit gets all pious about the GFA and the importance of consent, it may be appropriate to tell that scoundrel to fuck off with that nonsense. Such claims are made in bad faith and deserve little consideration.

[Aimless]

Lmao, Nelson deleted the old tweet in an attempt to escape the storm of ridicule and protect his sensitive followers from accurate legal information.

Fresh endorsement of legal nonsense indistinguishable from manure:

Twitter Link

Sad, and super weak.

Comment from an expert on EU law:

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Cream of the crop, the intellectual elite:

Twitter Link

[Hazir]

The funny thing is that they could have had their vote and kick him out. But they are all so busy scheming that they forgot he could be preparing for exactly that. Which is all the more amazing because his side was willing to go much further than is necessary right now.

I seriously feel that we're better off with them being on the outside as they figure out how a real government works.

[Aimless]

This nonsense about a PM refusing to resign after losing a VONC in order to drive through precisely that which would presumably provoke the VONC is borderline failed state stuff. Absolutely bonkers.

[RandBlade]

This nonsense about a PM refusing to resign after losing a VONC in order to drive through precisely that which would presumably provoke the VONC is borderline failed state stuff. Absolutely bonkers.

It's not bonkers its the law and our constitution. Idiots who didn't think it through seem to have not properly understood the Fixed Term Parliament Act and its consequences.

Under our constitution while there is not always a Parliament [it can be dissolved or prorogued] there is always a government. The PM is under no obligation to resign prior to an election - when James Callaghan lost a VONC in 1979 he remained PM until the election which Thatcher won, so he only resigned as PM once Thatcher had a majority. The same precedence will apply here, Boris Johnson is our Prime Minister and remains Prime Minister unless or until someone else can command a majority at the election or before. That precedence is crystal clear.

The Fixed Term Parliament Act introduced a 14 day window between a VONC and dissolution, unless the Commons gives the government Confidence again. Some people mistakenly thought that meant that unlike Callaghan, a PM now would need to resign. It doesn't. The PM remains the PM until there is an alternative, if the Commons united to give Confidence to someone else then Boris would be forced to either resign or be sacked by the Queen. However without an alternative it is Boris Johnson't duty to remain Prime Minister until the election and the Cabinet Manual makes this clear.

Which gets us to the timing of the election. The earliest possible date for an election due to a VONC is now Friday 25th October, it can not by law be any quicker than that due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. However the law gives the power of choosing the date to the Prime Minister, so he could choose a date after Friday 25th October. As it happens we hold elections on a Thursday by tradition and the first available Thursday is 31 October - or Brexit day itself. We would Brexit while the votes are being counted. It would be reasonable to say that is not a sensible date to hold the election and the next available Thursday or 7 November would make sense. The PM would be entitled to choose that date.

Finally we have the law. Between a VONC or after declaration of an election and before the election results are formalised by the formation of a new government [or Her Majesty asking the existing PM to continue] tradition is that the government takes no decisions and changes no laws. However that is merely tradition, if an urgent matter comes up it may need to be dealt with. Precedence exists here, Alastair Darling famously in 2010 agreed to the UK participating in a Eurozone bailout despite the fact that Labour had lost the election already. Because Brown hadn't resigned yet, as Cameron didn't have a majority on his own so Brown remained PM until the Coalition Agreement was signed. So the law should remain as it is. Some have argued that means we should remain in the EU until after an election but that is not the law. The law as passed by Parliament is that we are leaving the EU on 31 October. The law can be changed but it will take an Act of Parliament [or a regulatory change of date can be made by the government] to change that. Without any changes made, the law remains as it is and we leave on 31 October.

If the Commons wanted to stop a No Deal Brexit they have had a number of chances to do so. They could have changed the law, they haven't done so. They could have ratified the deal, they chose not to do so. They could have called a VONC earlier, they chose not to do so.

The law remains the law, a motion in the Commons is insufficient to change the law.

[RandBlade]

If Boris Johnson is 100% determined to drive through a No Deal Brexit and the Commons is 100% determined to prevent it then the Commons only has one route left to it now - an election is now too late which is the point.

The Commons would need to VONC the government and then rather than wait for an election, they must unite to give Confidence to someone else. If the Commons did that then that someone else would become Prime Minister and can then revoke Article 50, request an extension or anything else. Realistically there is only one person that can be that someone else: Jeremy Corbyn. Are there a majority of MPs willing to give him Confidence?

[RandBlade]

The Cabinet Manual is crystal clear. The PM resigns if and only if an alternative is available. The FTPA is the law, the EU Withdrawal Act is the law. Should Boris break the law to bring an election forward?

Change of Prime Minister or governmentduring a Parliament

1. 2.18 Where a Prime Minister chooses to resignfrom his or her individual position at atime when his or her administration has anoverall majority in the House of Commons,it is for the party or parties in governmentto identify who can be chosen as thesuccessor.16
2. 2.19 Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act2011, if a government is defeated on amotion that ‘this House has no con dencein Her Majesty’s Government’, there is
   then a 14-day period during which analternative government can be formedfrom the House of Commons as presentlyconstituted, or the incumbent governmentcan seek to regain the con dence of theHouse.17 If no government can secure thecon dence of the House of Commonsduring that period, through the approval ofa motion that ‘this House has con dencein Her Majesty’s Government’, a generalelection will take place. Other decisions
   of the House of Commons which havepreviously been regarded as expressing ‘nocon dence’ in the government no longerenable or require the Prime Minister to holda general election. The Prime Minister isexpected to resign where it is clear that heor she does not have the con dence of theHouse of Commons and that an alternativegovernment does have the con dence.
3. 2.20 Where a range of different administrationscould be formed, discussions may takeplace between political parties on whoshould form the next government. Inthese circumstances the processes andconsiderations described in paragraphs2.12–2.17 would apply.

Lets not forget ether that Jo Swinson, new leader of the Liberal Democrats called for Corbyn to bring in a VONC before Parliament rose for the summer recess. Had he done so an election could have been scheduled in time. He chose not to. Conveniently for Corbyn thus ruling out any chance of Swinson campaigning for herself to be PM to deal with this and meaning she has no choice but to accept Boris No Deal or install Corbyn as Prime Minister. Given Corbyn is a lifelong far left Eurosceptic I'm sure he is delighted with that.

Don't have a go at Boris for following the law.

[Aimless]

Johnson can only "run down the clock" if no alternative govt can gain confidence. Until it is clear that that cannot or will not happen, it is deeply irresponsible to let voters believe that he is under no obligation to resign.

[RandBlade]

Incorrect. The PM can do what he likes unless or until an alternative government can gain confidence. It is not for the PM to devise an alternative government, it is for those opposed to the PM to do so. Unless or until they've done that it is irresponsible of them to VONC the government unless they do want an election, which now have to be after Brexit.

Its not the government's responsibility to VONC itself or organise an alternative to itself. Running down the clock then having an election is the governments duty not irresponsible.

If MPs are thinking of bringing down the government then it is entirely reasonable that they be fully aware that the consequence of doing so, if they can't find an alternative government, is to force a No Deal Brexit to occur during the election. If an election is called then the government loses the right to negotiate and pass a deal.

EDIT: Just noticed this is the 4000th post in this thread.

[Aimless]

It is irresponsible and absurd to talk about running down the clock in the event of a VONC when that option only obtains in a situation where no alternative govt can gain confidence. Nobody has claimed that the PM is obliged to devise an alternative govt; that's just nonsensical.

[RandBlade]

It is neither irresponsible nor absurd. The government's duty in that scenario will be to either run down the clock and then face an election, or to spend 14 days trying to find a new majority within the existing Commons and then reverse the VONC with a VOC.

The latter is clearly not happening. So their duty will be to run down the clock. That is what the law provides for. If anything else comes up in the meantime that won't be from the government.

[Khendraja'aro]

So, about that illegal backstop. You were saying?

[Steely Glint]

BREXITERS: The EU will renegotiate a backstop.
REMAINERS: No, they won't.
THE EU: No, we won't.
BREXITERS: They totes will. We hold all the cards guys, the secret is you just gotta be tough. Watch this!

*Brexiters gain power*

BREXITERS, IN STERN VOICE: EU, unilaterally drop your backstop requirement so we can make a deal.
EU: No. Change your position, then we'll talk.
BREXITERS: We are deeply saddened the EU is refusing to negotiate.

Genius plan.

[RandBlade]

So, about that illegal backstop. You were saying?

Speak to Nobel Prize winner Lord Trimble, who both negotiated and signed the Good Friday Agreement.

[RandBlade]

BREXITERS: The EU will renegotiate a backstop.
REMAINERS: No, they won't.
THE EU: No, we won't.
BREXITERS: They totes will. We hold all the cards guys, the secret is you just gotta be tough. Watch this!

*Brexiters gain power*

BREXITERS, IN STERN VOICE: EU, unilaterally drop your backstop requirement so we can make a deal.
EU: No. Change your position, then we'll talk.
BREXITERS: We are deeply saddened the EU is refusing to negotiate.

Genius plan.

Indeed. We hold all the cards. The EU now has a choice.

1: No backstop, no deal, hard border in Ireland, no money.
2: No backstop, deal, no border in Ireland, money.

Their choice. Logically they will negotiate, they're just waiting to see if Parliament pulls down Boris first.

[Steely Glint]

You live in a fantasy world.

[Khendraja'aro]

Speak to Nobel Prize winner Lord Trimble, who both negotiated and signed the Good Friday Agreement.

So, the gist of it: He takes a political argument and makes the case that it goes against the law.

That's not what "illegal" means.

Also: You're kind of overlooking that this means that any kind of Brexit would also be "illegal" if you actually followed that argument, yes?

Plus, the courts (you know, the ones actually getting to define whether something is legal or not) have ruled against your sentiment?

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...iday-agreement.

Lastly, if a law is not clear on a certain matter then calling something "definitely illegal" is hogwash and a disingenous argument.

[LittleFuzzy]

Their choice. Logically they will negotiate

No they won't, because it's not logical at all. It makes no sense from rat-choice, realpolitik, liberal institutionalism, or any other framework you care to name. It would be an incredibly poor long-term decision for them to reward the UK's ineptitude, foot-dragging, and utter failure to build anything like internal consensus throughout this entire process your country initiated. They'll let you hard exit and see what they can negotiate with an exited UK later on, once you guys can come to a clearer picture on what a majority is willing to firmly get behind. You've demonstrated that any negotiating now is just so much pissing in the wind. And that it's going to stay that way until after you actually exit.

[Aimless]

Speak to Nobel Prize winner Lord Trimble, who both negotiated and signed the Good Friday Agreement.

Trimble's nobel prize is not relevant to the strength of his case. His objection does not apply to an all-UK backstop. While he may have a bit of a political argument wrt an NI backstop, he does not have a clear legal argument wrt the role of the principle of consent in this specific brexit-related matter. See eg. this discussion of the implication of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Gina Miller case for the legal permissibility of an NI backstop:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...iday-agreement

[Khendraja'aro]

No they won't, because it's not logical at all. It makes no sense from rat-choice, realpolitik, liberal institutionalism, or any other framework you care to name. It would be an incredibly poor long-term decision for them to reward the UK's ineptitude, foot-dragging, and utter failure to build anything like internal consensus throughout this entire process your country initiated. They'll let you hard exit and see what they can negotiate with an exited UK later on, once you guys can come to a clearer picture on what a majority is willing to firmly get behind. You've demonstrated that any negotiating now is just so much pissing in the wind. And that it's going to stay that way until after you actually exit.

Didn't we all tell him this already about a hundred times?

It feels like a hundred times, at least.

[Aimless]

Indeed. We hold all the cards. The EU now has a choice.

1: No backstop, no deal, hard border in Ireland, no money.
2: No backstop, deal, no border in Ireland, money.

Their choice. Logically they will negotiate, they're just waiting to see if Parliament pulls down Boris first.

This is borderline delusional. The EU does not care which liar is at the helm of your Ship of Fools; it cares about the provisions of the agreement being in compliance with EU law and core EU political principles, and about whether or not the UK can be trusted to keep any agreement it concludes. The existence of border controls will follow naturally from the UK's decisions and failures, while the money—even if you do attempt to renege on your obligations—is just a tiny fraction of the EU's GDP, although it will play an outsize role in any future trade negotiations.

[Khendraja'aro]

You know, maybe I'll actually make a short trip to England just before this goes down. After all, gotta take advantage of the weak pound.

Also, to snap some photos I can show the grandchildren: "And this is what London looked like before The Shittening, kids."

[Ominous Gamer]

I can't pick which story is funnier, Dominoes is having to stockpile ingredients because of the brexit fallout, or that the US is already signaling that they plan to exploit the hell out of the UK because they are desperate and have nothing else.

[Steely Glint]

You can see now, clear daylight been May's approach and Johnson. You see, where May asked to negotiate the backstop after it was rejected by parliament and was immediately rebuffed, Johnson won the Tory leadership contest on the strength of a radical new approach: asking the EU to renegotiate the back stop.

I think we can why he's surprised at being immediately rebuffed.

[Aimless]

Still topical:

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

No they won't, because it's not logical at all. It makes no sense from rat-choice, realpolitik, liberal institutionalism, or any other framework you care to name. It would be an incredibly poor long-term decision for them to reward the UK's ineptitude, foot-dragging, and utter failure to build anything like internal consensus throughout this entire process your country initiated. They'll let you hard exit and see what they can negotiate with an exited UK later on, once you guys can come to a clearer picture on what a majority is willing to firmly get behind. You've demonstrated that any negotiating now is just so much pissing in the wind. And that it's going to stay that way until after you actually exit.

If that's what happens, so be it, I'm cool with that.

The Irish bluff will have been called. We will see if the EU build customs posts or any other nonsense and if they don't, then the "need" for a backstop vanishes like the nonsense it always was.

[Khendraja'aro]

If that's what happens, so be it, I'm cool with that.

The Irish bluff will have been called. We will see if the EU build customs posts or any other nonsense and if they don't, then the "need" for a backstop vanishes like the nonsense it always was.

You seem to think that the WTO will not take umbrage at your trying to do an endrun around its requirements.

I think we already explained to you why Most Favoured Nation would be a bit of a problem for you if you tried to do that.

[Unheard Of]

There's little point telling Rand how this is going to turn out. He's a true believer.

Even if it does go the way I think most of us expect, his ilk will find some justification why it's not their fault that Brexit has gone badly. It's the EU's fault for not playing ball. It's the remainers' fault for not believing hard enough. It's Theresa May's fault for being hopeless at pretty much everything.

Eventually they will need a new scapegoat. I expect it will be a lot harder to be any shade darker than pasty white in England in a year and you'd be wise to avoid talking with a foreign accent (or god forbid, a foreign language) outside the most liberal areas.

As always, I hope I'm wrong.

EDIT: Difficult to disagree with this assessment of our chances of getting a good trade deal

[Ominous Gamer]

his ilk will find some justification why it's not their fault that Brexit has gone badly.

I called this a few dozen pages back, but I don't think he will ever get to the point where he has to admit blame needs assigned. That would require admitting that voting to exit without a plan was a mistake. He will just point out how it could be worse and how whatever shit the UK is in, its still better than what he some how believes the EU would have lead everyone into, that way he never has to entertain the idea of brexit being so fucking stupid.