Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

Also just the idea that you can abrogate a treaty because there are difficulties.   It's one way to be seen as reliable. But they are looking for wriggle room.

Don't always agree with Craig Murray but this feels right




https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/geoffrey-coxs-new-legal-advice-on-brexit-incentivises-unionist-violence/?fbclid=IwAR18812EfFA290oTsDg1Xj-JQCVBgJQ9Dk6jF2qCkbADUWPhneQExAYjxrM

[Gordon]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/geoffrey-coxs-new-legal-advice-on-brexit-incentivises-unionist-violence/?fbclid=IwAR18812EfFA290oTsDg1Xj-JQCVBgJQ9Dk6jF2qCkbADUWPhneQExAYjxrM

That is shocking, as well as being short-sighted: presumably this will be digested by the likes of Keir Starmer so that should Cox outline this in the HoC he will be challenged.

[Udayana]

It is ludicrous, but I can't see that it matters.

The backstop is there to guarantee the GFA, but if things have deteriorated to the extent that it needs to be suspended (assuming it was ever in operation) the GFA would have also been broken. 

Borders would be imposed and the next step would be WWIII.

[Gordon]

It seems now that whether or not May's deal survives is down to the DUP - utter madness!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47602746

[Spud]

Just to clarify: if we leave without a deal, the UK won't impose tariffs at the Irish border, so as to avoid a hard border, is that correct?

[Anchorman]

The worst of it is, many commentators on the mainland assume the DUP speak for NI; they do not. They don't even speak for the 'unionist' community; probably just over fifty percent thereof. Membership of the DUP is increasingly aging, as young - more enlightened - folk seek other ideologies, and there seems to be a small, but  increasing, number in the community once labelled 'loyalost' who favour Irish unification. I have friends in 'stroke city' who work with the Corymeela community (The NI equivalent of the interdenominational Iona Community in Scotland) who are frankly terrified at the consequences of a no-deal, hard, WTO or similar conclusion to this Westminster farce. The bridges built between the two factions were becoming all but permanent. Now the foundations are shaking. (By the way, 'stroke city' is the local name for Derry/Londonderry, not some comment on the medical outlook...)

[Udayana]

May needs them for MV3, but even if they switch and bring some more Cons. over with them, it could still be very close. MV4?

[wigginhall]

Is Bercow actually ruling out MV3?  Cor blimey.

[Gordon]

Looks that way - in response to Hilary Benn he more or less said that there would need to be changes involving the EU before there could be MV3, and that changes of opinion etc were unlikely to be substantial enough.

[Gordon]

The Guardian reports that the government may prorogue parliament in order to start a new session so as to have MV3 - can't see that going down well.

[Udayana]

Looks that way - in response to Hilary Benn he more or less said that there would need to be changes involving the EU before there could be MV3, and that changes of opinion etc were unlikely to be substantial enough.

Yes ... or a change of context - if the motion put forward a different proposition - eg. a plan for a customs union, or maybe a cross party negotiating group for the long term trade and political deal, or a referendum to confirm outcome? These don't require any new immediate commitments by the EU27.
 
I think they were coming to the point where it looked as if MV3 wouldn't pass without a substantial change of strategy anyway.
 

[Nearly Sane]

If MV3 wasn't looking like passing then, not sure what Bercow was looking to achieve other than increase the advance for his memoirs. I think he's decided he doesn't care about anything that his detractors think they can do to him .

I'm not sure on the rules of proroguing, and not sure that anyone is coming out of this looking anything other than an idiot..

[Gordon]

There is also the time element.

Was listening to Radio 4 and it was noted that since an extension of whatever length requires a Statutory Instrument to go through both the HoC and HoL to change the 29th March date, and that would take some time even if it was nodded-through in both places.

Of course she may have lost her MV3 anyway if Bercow hadn't intervened, or would lose even if they prorogue Parliament so as to have MV3 at some future date in a new session, so a longer extension would may well been required no matter what - and it seems she needs to get the EU to agree that this weekend.

It is a mess though.

[Nearly Sane]

This is quite a good analysis of the effects.


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/03/has-john-bercow-really-ruled-out-third-meaningful-vote

[Harrowby Hall]

Erskin May  1  -  Theresa May  0

[jeremyp]

Just to clarify: if we leave without a deal, the UK won't impose tariffs at the Irish border, so as to avoid a hard border, is that correct?

I can't see how that would work. Sure, we can unilaterally declare we will not impose tariffs, but that doesn't mean the EU has to follow suit.

[jeremyp]

If MV3 wasn't looking like passing then, not sure what Bercow was looking to achieve other than increase the advance for his memoirs. I think he's decided he doesn't care about anything that his detractors think they can do to him .

Maybe he's just tired of the piss-take that this has become. May's deal has already been voted down twice. At some point you have to say that is a no.

If the PM had some substantive changes to the deal, another vote would be fair enough, but she hasn't. The only thing that has changed since last time is that the alternatives are now effectively MV3 or ask to extend the deadline. She was hoping the bill would pass if the MPs are under duress.

[Spud]

I can't see how that would work. Sure, we can unilaterally declare we will not impose tariffs, but that doesn't mean the EU has to follow suit.

I was mainly concerned about whether a no deal Brexit would automatically result in a hard border. And does the fact that the default is for no deal on 29 March override the government's commitment to avoiding a hard border?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Despite all these administrative problems caused by exiting without a deal (e.g. if we leave without a deal we may have a driving licence problem if we want to drive in EU countries until the government sort out arrangements), I agree with Bercow not permitting May to hold multiple MVs over the same deal. Apart from the procedural issue, the government, and especially May, seem to be losing more and more domestic credibility if they keep losing MVs by large majorities. 

It is all getting very Monty Pythonesque - but the Dutch PM seems to be paying May a compliment when he said:

“She reminds me occasionally of that character from Monty Python where all the arms and legs are cut off but he then tells the opponent: ‘Let’s call it a draw.’ She’s incredible. She goes on and on. At the same time, I do not blame her, but British politics.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/17/dutch-pm-compares-theresa-may-to-monty-python-limbless-knight

ETA: Some newspapers are reporting the Dutch PM's words in a way that discredits May. They mention the Monty Python bit but not the bit where he calles May "incredible" and says he doesn't blame her.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/18/limbless-monty-python-knight-may-became-butt-brexit-jokes/

[jeremyp]

I was mainly concerned about whether a no deal Brexit would automatically result in a hard border. And does the fact that the default is for no deal on 29 March override the government's commitment to avoiding a hard border?

Yes. There would be an automatic hard border. Our government could say “we’re going to let goods through unimpeded anyway”. But I don’t think the EU would be able to do the same thing.

[Udayana]

Yes. There would be an automatic hard border. Our government could say “we’re going to let goods through unimpeded anyway”. But I don’t think the EU would be able to do the same thing.

But... the UK, Ireland and the NI parties are signed up to the GFA and have repeatedly declared that there will be no hard border. I expect that, possibly after a period of confusion with a rise in violence and smuggling, we would end up with a de facto "Irish sea" border.

[Spud]

But... the UK, Ireland and the NI parties are signed up to the GFA and have repeatedly declared that there will be no hard border. I expect that, possibly after a period of confusion with a rise in violence and smuggling, we would end up with a de facto "Irish sea" border.

So, avoiding crashing out and a subsequent hard border would be a legitimate purpose for an extension, then... Unless the govt want to claim they'd done everything possible to avoid a  hard border.

[Udayana]

So, avoiding crashing out and a subsequent hard border would be a legitimate purpose for an extension, then... Unless the govt want to claim they'd done everything possible to avoid a  hard border.

Yes, but May is not following a strategy that will get the Withdrawal Agreement accepted by parliament even with an extension. In fact an extension and the Speaker's statements yesterday leave her "running down the clock" tactic even more useless.

[Spud]

Yes, but May is not following a strategy that will get the Withdrawal Agreement accepted by parliament even with an extension. In fact an extension and the Speaker's statements yesterday leave her "running down the clock" tactic even more useless.

Now I get why not getting the deal through risks no Brexit at all: she has to avoid crashing out.
Perhaps working on Labour's proposal could also be a purpose for an extension.

[jeremyp]

But... the UK, Ireland and the NI parties are signed up to the GFA and have repeatedly declared that there will be no hard border. I expect that, possibly after a period of confusion with a rise in violence and smuggling, we would end up with a de facto "Irish sea" border.

You can't have an open border without some agreement with the EU about it. It doesn't matter what the GFA says, if the EU won't let our goods in unrestricted, it won't be an open border.

This is the main reason why May's withdrawal agreement isn't getting through. It keeps us in the customs union until such time as we sort out the Irish border issue with the EU and that might never happen.