Guest MattP Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Just watched the news, May obviously central point, then Nicola Sturgeon followed by a bit of Tim Farron (minor fart) Corbyn wasnt even mentioned, had he said anything or are they ignoring him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 5 minutes ago, MattP said: Just watched the news, May obviously central point, then Nicola Sturgeon followed by a bit of Tim Farron (minor fart) Corbyn wasnt even mentioned, had he said anything or are they ignoring him? He will form an opinion in about three months I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 9 minutes ago, Strokes said: He will form an opinion in about three months I reckon. And it will still be wanting to access the single market with controls on immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Am I right in thinking that we still don't know whether, hypothetically, the UK could withdraw its Article 50 notice to leave within the 2-year negotiating period? I appreciate that the UK seems highly unlikely to do that, but a lot can change in 2 years, if that is an option. It would also cast the parliamentary vote on the final deal in a different light. Everyone is assuming that, when the final parliamentary vote is staged, it will be a choice between accepting the deal and a "cliff-edge" exit with no deal and trade on WTO terms. But that hasn't been confirmed, has it? The Supreme Court appeal ruling might give an opinion, but any final legal interpretation would presumably fall within the remit of the ECJ (ironically). IF (big IF) there IS an option for the UK to withdraw its notice to leave, then if the UK Parliament didn't like the deal negotiated, it could order the government to withdraw its Article 50 notice before the 2-year deadline expires. In theory, parliament could order our representatives to renegotiate the deal before the 2-year deadline, to seek an extension to the 2-year deadline (though this would require unanimous EU agreement) or even to definitively withdraw our notice to leave, if Parliament didn't believe that any deal in the national interest was possible - or if the mood of the nation had swung away from Brexit.... Even if there is an option to withdraw, it seems an unlikely scenario....but not an impossible one, as a lot can change in 2 years (knowledge of the potential deal; state of the economy; political mood of the nation). Furthermore, whether there is an option for the UK to trigger Article 50 but to change its mind within the 2-year period could have a massive impact on UK & EU negotiating strategies - in ways that are hard to predict. If there's no option to withdraw notice, it will be a very high-stakes poker game - which side, if either, will be prepared to play hard-ball and risk the cliff-edge scenario that could damage them both if there's no deal? If there IS an option for the UK to withdraw its notice, would that make it less risky for the UK to seek border control AND extensive single market access? Or less risky for the EU to play hard-ball and offer very little, in the hope that the UK parliament buckles? The EU could be second-guessing the UK Parliament in that case! This point seems massively important - and I'm pretty sure that it's not been clarified yet. Legal experts have expressed opinions on both sides, but ultimately we don't know, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 I don't know why but I'm finding Teresa May rather sexy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 6 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said: I don't know why but I'm finding Teresa May rather sexy!! It's because you're a dirty old man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Just now, Strokes said: It's because you're a dirty old man. OLD, I'm not old, all my body parts work fine, thank you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 The BBC claiming the pound went up because 'There's a chance Brexit won't happen' because she offered a vote on the deal. Talk about toys out of the pram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 5 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said: OLD, I'm not old, all my body parts work fine, thank you!!! Sorry it's hard to tell, I've only ever seen your tallywhacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Just now, Strokes said: Sorry it's hard to tell, I've only ever seen your tallywhacker Literally, nothing to see there!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Am I right in thinking that we still don't know whether, hypothetically, the UK could withdraw its Article 50 notice to leave within the 2-year negotiating period? I appreciate that the UK seems highly unlikely to do that, but a lot can change in 2 years, if that is an option. It would also cast the parliamentary vote on the final deal in a different light. Everyone is assuming that, when the final parliamentary vote is staged, it will be a choice between accepting the deal and a "cliff-edge" exit with no deal and trade on WTO terms. But that hasn't been confirmed, has it? The Supreme Court appeal ruling might give an opinion, but any final legal interpretation would presumably fall within the remit of the ECJ (ironically). IF (big IF) there IS an option for the UK to withdraw its notice to leave, then if the UK Parliament didn't like the deal negotiated, it could order the government to withdraw its Article 50 notice before the 2-year deadline expires. In theory, parliament could order our representatives to renegotiate the deal before the 2-year deadline, to seek an extension to the 2-year deadline (though this would require unanimous EU agreement) or even to definitively withdraw our notice to leave, if Parliament didn't believe that any deal in the national interest was possible - or if the mood of the nation had swung away from Brexit.... Even if there is an option to withdraw, it seems an unlikely scenario....but not an impossible one, as a lot can change in 2 years (knowledge of the potential deal; state of the economy; political mood of the nation). Furthermore, whether there is an option for the UK to trigger Article 50 but to change its mind within the 2-year period could have a massive impact on UK & EU negotiating strategies - in ways that are hard to predict. If there's no option to withdraw notice, it will be a very high-stakes poker game - which side, if either, will be prepared to play hard-ball and risk the cliff-edge scenario that could damage them both if there's no deal? If there IS an option for the UK to withdraw its notice, would that make it less risky for the UK to seek border control AND extensive single market access? Or less risky for the EU to play hard-ball and offer very little, in the hope that the UK parliament buckles? The EU could be second-guessing the UK Parliament in that case! This point seems massively important - and I'm pretty sure that it's not been clarified yet. Legal experts have expressed opinions on both sides, but ultimately we don't know, do we? I recall reading somewhere that once it's activated then that's that. Not quite sure where I read it though. Fairly certain it can't be undone once active. Would be devastating for all involved if it was imo. 21 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said: I don't know why but I'm finding Teresa May rather sexy!! Power naturally attracts. Tbf after her speech I'd have given her one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 10 minutes ago, SMX11 said: The BBC claiming the pound went up because 'There's a chance Brexit won't happen' because she offered a vote on the deal. Talk about toys out of the pram. There's a fairly large difference in getting a yay/nay vote on the final deal and getting to PICK the final deal. They will be given 2 options. 1) Vote yes on the deal as negotiated by the tories 2) Vote no and we're on WTO rules So in reality, they will be getting a vote, but it won't count for jack shizzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 20 minutes ago, SMX11 said: The BBC claiming the pound went up because 'There's a chance Brexit won't happen' because she offered a vote on the deal. Talk about toys out of the pram. The news tonight was unbelievable. 15 mins of how bad Brexit is going to be and then a bit more about evil Donald Trump is. It was like we were watching a repeat from October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Don't think I've ever seen the print press be so united behind a political speech from a Prime Minister. It's comes to something when the Labour leader can only dream of the headlines the Tory leader is getting in the Daily Mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said: Am I right in thinking that we still don't know whether, hypothetically, the UK could withdraw its Article 50 notice to leave within the 2-year negotiating period? The deal is once article 50 is triggered that's it. The two years can be extended but only if all 28 parties agree to it. Even if it was logistically feasible for the government to back down, it has now become a political impossibility. The Lords won't block it. Labour have said they won't either. The Lib Dems cant block it. And everybody can see right through the SNP. Game, set, match. In the end the EU made this very easy for May. If we can't 'pick and choose' what option did she have left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 1 hour ago, Innovindil said: I recall reading somewhere that once it's activated then that's that. Not quite sure where I read it though. Fairly certain it can't be undone once active. Would be devastating for all involved if it was imo. Power naturally attracts. Tbf after her speech I'd have given her one. 31 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: The deal is once article 50 is triggered that's it. The two years can be extended but only if all 28 parties agree to it. Even if it was logistically feasible for the government to back down, it has now become a political impossibility. The Lords won't block it. Labour have said they won't either. The Lib Dems cant block it. And everybody can see right through the SNP. Game, set, match. In the end the EU made this very easy for May. If we can't 'pick and choose' what option did she have left? It's clear that the EU cannot stop the 2-year Article 50 process. It's clear that an extension beyond 2 years is possible but unlikely as all 28 nations would have to agree (& the different EU institutions, I think). However, it is NOT clear that the UK cannot withdraw its notice to leave under Article 50. Unless someone can disprove that? Here are various credible sources arguing that Article 50 is reversible by the UK. Others disagree. Lord Kerr (who actually wrote Article 50): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628 Business Insider: http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-article-50-may-not-be-reversible-2016-10 Politics.co.uk, citing 4 European law experts: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/12/12/can-we-withdraw-article-50-once-we-trigger-it-probably-yes Express reports a legal case in Ireland on this issue: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/744156/Article-50-can-be-reversed-after-triggered-Brexit-challenge-High-Court-Ireland-reversible Guardian (& Express) claim the Govt considered using this argument in its legal appeal!: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/11/brexit-could-be-reversed-government-lawyers-may-argue It currently seems highly unlikely we'd consider reversing our position, but a lot can change in 2 years. I know that it's not the scenario that Brexit supporters expect, but humour me and imagine this scenario in late 2018: uncertainty has caused an economic downturn; it is becoming clear that Brexit negotiations aren't going to yield a good deal for the UK; various firms are actively moving operations to other EU countries; the polls on Brexit have turned and a majority now consistently support staying in the Single Market, if not the EU itself. IF (big IF) the UK does have an option to withdraw its 2-year notice to leave, is Parliament really going to vote for Brexit to proceed on poor terms, against the national economic interest and against the (changed) will of the electorate, when 2/3 of MPs were originally Remainers? That scenario could change if the Tories hold an early general election in the coming months, of course.....another issue that seems to have fallen off the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: It's clear that the EU cannot stop the 2-year Article 50 process. It's clear that an extension beyond 2 years is possible but unlikely as all 28 nations would have to agree (& the different EU institutions, I think). However, it is NOT clear that the UK cannot withdraw its notice to leave under Article 50. Unless someone can disprove that? Here are various credible sources arguing that Article 50 is reversible by the UK. Others disagree. Lord Kerr (who actually wrote Article 50): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628 Business Insider: http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-article-50-may-not-be-reversible-2016-10 Politics.co.uk, citing 4 European law experts: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/12/12/can-we-withdraw-article-50-once-we-trigger-it-probably-yes Express reports a legal case in Ireland on this issue: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/744156/Article-50-can-be-reversed-after-triggered-Brexit-challenge-High-Court-Ireland-reversible Guardian (& Express) claim the Govt considered using this argument in its legal appeal!: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/11/brexit-could-be-reversed-government-lawyers-may-argue It currently seems highly unlikely we'd consider reversing our position, but a lot can change in 2 years. I know that it's not the scenario that Brexit supporters expect, but humour me and imagine this scenario in late 2018: uncertainty has caused an economic downturn; it is becoming clear that Brexit negotiations aren't going to yield a good deal for the UK; various firms are actively moving operations to other EU countries; the polls on Brexit have turned and a majority now consistently support staying in the Single Market, if not the EU itself. IF (big IF) the UK does have an option to withdraw its 2-year notice to leave, is Parliament really going to vote for Brexit to proceed on poor terms, against the national economic interest and against the (changed) will of the electorate, when 2/3 of MPs were originally Remainers? That scenario could change if the Tories hold an early general election in the coming months, of course.....another issue that seems to have fallen off the agenda. Interesting, perhaps it could be reversed in theory then, but highly unlikely. Going along with your hypothetical situation though, what constitutes a "good deal" and who gets to decide who it's good for? The whole firms moving operations to other EU countries always seems to get mentioned, yet from what I can work out, most of those who are considering "moving" are actually preparing to move a segment of their business to an EU country, since most of them believe that that will allow them to offer the same sort of services to the EU without having to actually move the main headquarters from London. Not quite sure what economical effects this would have on us since I was under the impression they paid tax in the countries they operated in anyway. But again, not exactly well educated on the service sector, so mostly my own speculation. And if we were to reverse the decision it would be a second referendum, not "polls", since we have already seen the result of those being flawed. Hypothetically possible, yes. Remotely likely? Naaaa. Crawling back now with tails between our legs would be catastrophic. The EU needs reform and it won't happen from the inside, someone has to go first and we're probably the best positioned to do it. I doubt the Tories will hold a general election until the next one is due, there really is no need to at all, the result is pretty much guaranteed to be a Tory victory, and by quite some margin, no point wasting time with shenanigans while this brexit stuff gets sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: It's clear that the EU cannot stop the 2-year Article 50 process. It's clear that an extension beyond 2 years is possible but unlikely as all 28 nations would have to agree (& the different EU institutions, I think). However, it is NOT clear that the UK cannot withdraw its notice to leave under Article 50. Unless someone can disprove that? Here are various credible sources arguing that Article 50 is reversible by the UK. Others disagree. Lord Kerr (who actually wrote Article 50): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628 Business Insider: http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-article-50-may-not-be-reversible-2016-10 Politics.co.uk, citing 4 European law experts: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/12/12/can-we-withdraw-article-50-once-we-trigger-it-probably-yes Express reports a legal case in Ireland on this issue: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/744156/Article-50-can-be-reversed-after-triggered-Brexit-challenge-High-Court-Ireland-reversible Guardian (& Express) claim the Govt considered using this argument in its legal appeal!: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/11/brexit-could-be-reversed-government-lawyers-may-argue It currently seems highly unlikely we'd consider reversing our position, but a lot can change in 2 years. I know that it's not the scenario that Brexit supporters expect, but humour me and imagine this scenario in late 2018: uncertainty has caused an economic downturn; it is becoming clear that Brexit negotiations aren't going to yield a good deal for the UK; various firms are actively moving operations to other EU countries; the polls on Brexit have turned and a majority now consistently support staying in the Single Market, if not the EU itself. IF (big IF) the UK does have an option to withdraw its 2-year notice to leave, is Parliament really going to vote for Brexit to proceed on poor terms, against the national economic interest and against the (changed) will of the electorate, when 2/3 of MPs were originally Remainers? That scenario could change if the Tories hold an early general election in the coming months, of course.....another issue that seems to have fallen off the agenda. What government would want to make us the laughing stock of the world? Certainly not the current one who now exist only within the context of delivering brexit - every other issue is a distant 2nd. The problem for your line of thinking is that even if it all goes belly up the pm has the ultimate moral high ground in that she can, quite justifiably, turn to the electorate and say 'this was your idea, not mine.' Turning back now would mean the end of her career and that of vast swathes of her cabinet, and that is why they won't go back even if they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkon84 Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 10 hours ago, MattP said: The news tonight was unbelievable. 15 mins of how bad Brexit is going to be and then a bit more about evil Donald Trump is. It was like we were watching a repeat from October. Or simply just Channel 4 news every single bloody night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barky Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 8 hours ago, GazzinderFox said: What government would want to make us the laughing stock of the world? Certainly not the current one who now exist only within the context of delivering brexit - every other issue is a distant 2nd. The problem for your line of thinking is that even if it all goes belly up the pm has the ultimate moral high ground in that she can, quite justifiably, turn to the electorate and say 'this was your idea, not mine.' Turning back now would mean the end of her career and that of vast swathes of her cabinet, and that is why they won't go back even if they could. It won't necessarily mean the end of her career if public sentiment supports remaining in the eu at the time. I can't see that happening, but you never know. Only about 30% of the electorate voted for brexit, many of them low wage employees who are right at the sharp end if it causes a downturn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 We really need clarity as to whether the UK can rescind its triggering of Article 50 during the 2-year negotiating period. It seems a minor issue now - and it might never become a major issue. The economy might muddle through and a Brexit deal might be done that is acceptable to both sides. But the economy might struggle and a good deal might not be possible. If a week is a long time in politics, two years is an eternity. Two years ago, another hung parliament looked a near certainty. Miliband as PM was a distinct possibility. Labour had about 50 MPs in Scotland, the Lib Dems had 60 nationwide and were in government. An EU referendum looked highly unlikely, never mind a Brexit vote. Trump wasn't even a candidate. LCFC were bottom of the league in our first season back in the Premier. I assume complete border/immigration control is a red line. So, by "good deal" I mean a deal that secures reasonably free trade for the UK with our main trading partner, untrammeled by tariffs and red tape - and a deal that supports continued investment and reasonable growth in the UK. As regards who decides what is a good deal.....well, ultimately, it's going to be Parliament, taking account of the views of the British public, which is sort of my point. I'm sure May won't want to reverse Article 50 in 18 months time (even if she started off as a mild Remainer). But Parliament will get a vote - and May only has a tiny majority in Parliament, plus many of her own backbenchers are Remainers. If the economy is chugging along nicely and a half-decent Brexit deal is on the table, none of that will matter. But if the economy is struggling, the EU are playing hard-ball over tariffs, trade and other issues, and the public is getting agitated, then it really does matter whether the UK could reverse its triggering of Article 50. Because Parliament, the sovereign political body of the UK, could order the Govt to do just that. That might not involve reversing the decision to leave the EU (that would require a mandate from either a second referendum or a general election, surely?). It might involve ordering the government to go back and negotiate a better deal on trade, even if it has to compromise on immigration. It might involve seeking an extension to the 2-year negotiating period. It might involve a tactical withdrawal, then a re-triggering of Article 50 (that one's unlikely, admittedly). May is in a very strong position now, with the economy tolerably OK, negotiations not having started, no major shift in public mood over Brexit and both Labour & UKIP at a low ebb. But the situation might be very different in 18 months time. That's why the temptation to call an election must be massive. She could call one for, say, early March, saying that she wanted a strong mandate for the Brexit negotiations ahead - and she'd almost certainly get one, as things stand. That would leave her a lot less vulnerable in Parliament if things get difficult with the economy, the negotiations or the public mood. Of course, if the economy and negotiations are going badly in 18 months time, there's another likely scenario. Encouraged by the Government, UKIP and sections of the media, the public could well blame the EU and foreigners more generally. Things could get really nasty and xenophobic. It would be good to know all the rules before the big poker game begins. All our futures and our families' futures are on the table, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 This threat to turn the UK into a low-tax haven for global corporations is quite something, isn't it? As a developed nation, if you have low corporate taxation, then you inevitably have some combination of higher personal taxation or low public spending to counter-balance that. The USA has only a partial health service. Ireland has low corporation tax, but high personal tax, no NHS and crap public services apart from education. Unless the UK wanted to compete as a low-skills economy (unlikely as developing nations could still undercut us), we'd probably have to do something similar to Ireland: increase spending on education/training, slash spending on health and other public services and increase income tax/national insurance. It could all be bluff for negotiating purposes, but May is basically saying to the EU: if you don't give us what we want, we'll thoroughly shaft you by taking loads of money from our own people and using it to bribe rich global corporations. What lovely politics! Did they know that's what they were voting for in Sunderland and Nuneaton, when they chose to get rid of EU interference and lots of the foreigners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 35 minutes ago, Barky said: It won't necessarily mean the end of her career if public sentiment supports remaining in the eu at the time. Mrs brexit means brexit? She'd be toast if such a scenario arose. As would most of those in her cabinet who are basically only there because they are pro brexit. Most people voted along ideological lines in the referendum because the flow of information was so poor. Like Alf has said we probably won't know for years whether it will work out for the better so why would these ideologically driven people change their minds in the next 24 months? especially given that many of the doomsday predictions are starting to unravel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 28 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: This threat to turn the UK into a low-tax haven for global corporations is quite something, isn't it? As a developed nation, if you have low corporate taxation, then you inevitably have some combination of higher personal taxation or low public spending to counter-balance that. The USA has only a partial health service. Ireland has low corporation tax, but high personal tax, no NHS and crap public services apart from education. Unless the UK wanted to compete as a low-skills economy (unlikely as developing nations could still undercut us), we'd probably have to do something similar to Ireland: increase spending on education/training, slash spending on health and other public services and increase income tax/national insurance. It could all be bluff for negotiating purposes, but May is basically saying to the EU: if you don't give us what we want, we'll thoroughly shaft you by taking loads of money from our own people and using it to bribe rich global corporations. What lovely politics! Did they know that's what they were voting for in Sunderland and Nuneaton, when they chose to get rid of EU interference and lots of the foreigners? More than likely a strong arm tactic tbh. And while I do agree with you that there are many downsides, I don't think we would go loopy with it. The impression I get is we would lower corporation tax to a point that offsets any tariffs we might have to accept, thus making the UK remain an appealing place to do business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barky Posted 18 January 2017 Share Posted 18 January 2017 17 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: Mrs brexit means brexit? She'd be toast if such a scenario arose. As would most of those in her cabinet who are basically only there because they are pro brexit. Most people voted along ideological lines in the referendum because the flow of information was so poor. Like Alf has said we probably won't know for years whether it will work out for the better so why would these ideologically driven people change their minds in the next 24 months? especially given that many of the doomsday predictions are starting to unravel? Like I said brexit voters were in the main poorly educated and low income people (I know that hurts some people to hear but it's the truth so deal with it). They're exactly the type of people who will be hurt most by a downturn. A lot of them voted leave because they seriously thought that their lives would suddenly become much better. If they get much worse instead they'll soon change their minds. May will get away with switching plan if she has public support because she'd be doing what the people want. Very unlikely to happen but it's a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.