EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

It is just not allowed. It isn't illegal, is it?

Or was it an ECJ court ruling? I forget.

It's not allowed if you are doing it to buy time - for e.g, to re-negotiate, that's very much off the table.

It's unilateral, but the EU can state that it's unilateral for one purpose - to remain in the EU.

If that's not why it's given, then the EU don't have to accept it.

If the intention is to re-negotiate, it's the existing WA and no extension.

Have you got any link to that? I remember hearing that at the time but couldn't find anything definitive on it.

Dominic Grieve came to speak at my school yesterday. I'm not sure quite how he found the time, but he was great value.

I was going to ask how he and fellow Remain Conservatives view Cameron's decision to hold a referendum in the first place, but he got in first and described his regret at how it had "blown up in their faces" and was a stupid idea in the first place. Quite.

I disagree with this. Her deal is only this bad because of May’s own red lines. She could have had a much better deal if she had made some sensible concessions.

She could have. But any deal with softer red lines (or no red lines) would have looked conspicuously like a worse, no different deal than the one we currently enjoy. Not that her deal looks good of course.

And it’s now too late, and the EU don’t trust us. The deal on offer is the only deal on offer.

If the intention is to re-negotiate, it's the existing WA and no extension.

You keep saying this but it's not true. The EU have said time and again they will not renegotiate May's deal.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/uk/brexit-negotiations-rejected-intl/index.html

It's too late for May and the current Government to do anything else. So if May keeps pushing her deal then, yes, that is the only deal on offer.

May cannot revoke A50 in order to buy more time to negotiate the finer points of her deal, that is definitely not acting in good faith (or whatever the term is). The EU would just continue to say "we've told you we're not budging on that deal" and the can would be kicked a lot further down the road.

Any revocation to buy more time would require the UK to considerably change the base terms of a deal, at that point the EU would probably start to talk again, especially if this is backed up by another round of 'will of the people' (i.e. a second referendum). This would also almost certainly require a change of leadership (either in the Tory party itself or Labour getting into power) as Theresa May's reputation would be shot (if it isn't already).

I'm really not sure it's a given that TM would loss a confidence vote, even after having her WA being rejected, normal rules don't seam to apply anymore, given the number of votes the government have lost you would have expected them to have fallen by now. Nothing will unite the Tories more than Labour making a move on them.

I also really don't understand Labour eagerness for any election, there coalition of voters are even more fragile than the Tories.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/10/jeremy-corbyn-election-nightmare-labour-brexit

Labour’s tacticians will be acutely mindful of the stark polling figures. When YouGov asked how people would vote if Labour supported going ahead with Brexit, Labour slumped to third place, at 22%, behind the Liberal Democrats, who jumped to 26%. That’s a mistake Labour will never make, whatever Corbyn’s private predilections.

Labour will have to face the brexit issue head on and either get on with backing remain or very very close to remain or there going to loss again badly.

I'm really not sure it's a given that TM would loss a confidence vote

And isn't posturing that you're going to raise one if the WA is voted down only going to galvanise Tories into voting it through?

I don't understand the desire for an election either (unless he's quietly looking for the ensuing disaster to reshape stuff as he'd want, in the same way that I assume the Tories are). I don't think Labour's Brexit position is anywhere mature (or at least, honest) enough to survive examination.

Exactly, voting against May's deal is one thing, voting your party out of power is a completely different thing.

However, since May survived her vote of no confidence (in her) before Christmas she's immune for another year in that respect.

If the party want her out then they have to:
a) pressure her to resign and trigger a leadership contest
b) lose the vote of no confidence (in the Government) that triggers a GE, and May would be forced to resign in shame
c) take the nuclear option and have some Tories abstain or even vote against her in the vote of no confidence (in the Government) - unprecedented
d) something else I haven't thought of

The threat of (b) happening or them actively doing (c) may be what is required to force (a).

In reality, I think she'll stick around for even longer. When May's deal is voted down (Tuesday if it all goes ahead as normal) then Parliament should get to vote on the various options (no deal, another deal - based on different red lines, Norway plus, remain, second ref possibly, etc). She can always cling on to the "I was just trying to implement the will of the people" line which she has been spouting all along so far which, I think, she is hoping means she is isolated from the outcome despite choosing many of the red lines (none of which were on the original referendum ballot paper).

Labour have to move pretty swiftly after Tuesday's vote, or when the vote(s) on the various options is due to take place. [EDIT] As said above, their position does not seem to be fleshed out at all, and if they leave it too late they may not be able to communicate their position quickly enough to persuade the electorate.

If the party want her out then they have to:

a) pressure her to resign and trigger a leadership contest
b) lose the vote of no confidence (in the Government) that triggers a GE, and May would be forced to resign in shame
c) take the nuclear option and have some Tories abstain or even vote against her in the vote of no confidence (in the Government) - unprecedented
d) something else I haven't thought of

All this takes time, and lots of it and the clock is ticking, in reality at that point it's revoke A50 or no deal bat shit mental brexit.

There is no way the Tories are going to revoke A50, there is no way they could sell that to the alt right lynch mob that is the UK press, the mail would be issuing kill lists on the front page the next day, it would be total electrical suicide for them.

electrical suicide

I agree, revoking Article 50 has become the (latest) '3rd rail' in UK politics. :)

The longer this goes on, the more attractive the going back to the people option becomes. Whether that’s through a general election or another fucking referendum we don’t know, but it is the best option for keeping both the Tory and Labour parties intact.

Well, if a people's vote is the only way to save their own necks then it may just happen.

I'm not so sure, from a Tory perspective another referendum would be equally suicidal for there supporters, they very much eat there UKIP baby at the last election and those voters would be gone.

Labour party not so much, there supports are mostly remainers. yeah, yeah I know they have some (more than some) leaving voting seats, but the majority of there voters in those seats are still remainers.

Sorry, but you are wrong. I think you are confusing revocation with extension.

Revocation is exactly that- and extension is as the name suggests, an extension. Their is zero suggestion that the EU would grant an extension for a re-negotiation of the WA, but every suggestion that they would for a referendum- as long as it had sensible choices such as Mays WA or remain. They won’t grant an extension for WA vs no-deal, for example.

If Corbyn got into government by the end of Feb the EU might grant an extension to ratify the terms of the WA, but there is no suggestion that they would re-negotiate it at this late stage. Everything else aside there’s simply no time as the extension would be bounded by the European elections in May.

Finally, why grant an extension when Labours rhetoric has been to achieve the impossible? What would the point be? And, finally finally, the WA is not the future agreement. It doesn’t bind us to a future without the SM, or Norway+, or anything else- it simply stops us ruining Ireland if we continue to demand the impossible.

The only way I can see a vote of no confidence working is if something new pisses off the DUP (even more than normal) or a number of remain tories find the threat of no deal so bad that they vote against the gov't (unlikely) or 'go on a trip' when the vote is scheduled.

But were there to be an election and therefore presumably an extension to A50, the most sensible suggestion I've seen is for labour to run on a dual Brexit proposal - that they will renegotiate with the EU and put their new deal and remain to a referendum. That should just about keep both leavers and remainers happy enough to get into power.

Taking Brexit back to the people via a General Election doesn't work in my view. I can see what the Tories position would be (the WA, though even that's not a stable view as it's not viable), and possibly the Lib Dems (cancellation?). I guess UKIP's would be clear if they became relevant again.

I can't see what Labours is. It'd be like the original question in the referendum, where no one knew what a vote to Leave actually meant. A Labour vote would have the exact same ambiguity.

We're saying pretty much the same thing, the difference is down to the politics and the hard stance that the EU is currently taking against May's Government and her WA.

(I think some of the confusion is that by 're-negotiate' I'm including the option of a completely new deal proposed, possibly from a completely new Government.)

The extension is a red herring as, I agree, nothing can be done in the scant time available and May doesn't have the wiggle room to get a deal through given the red lines she won't go back on (back down too much and too many Tories will rebel and vote it down, don't back down enough and Labour will vote it down). And the EU don't want to renegotiate her deal.

The question (I'm posing) is whether the UK can revoke A50 and then resubmit later.

Logically they must be able to, for if the UK ends up revoking A50 the inability to ever submit A50 again would mean the UK would be permanently stuck in the EU.

From there it becomes a question of what conditions (and timescales) are involved that would allow the UK to resubmit A50. I would suggest that a considerable change in the UK Government backed up by another referendum would be enough, and that would be the option that a future Government would/could take. (Ideally, as a remainer, I'd hope that a second referendum would be phrased in such a way that the whole notion of Brexit is canned once and for all, or for another 10 years or so.)

Put it another way, if the UK revoked A50 and then said to the EU "We'll have most of what we have now, you can take away our special deal concessions and we'll continue to pay in to the EU like we do now" then the EU would snap at the chance. At that point it reminds me of this apocryphal exchange: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/

The question (I'm posing) is whether the UK can revoke A50 and then resubmit later.

I don't think there was anything to suggest that we can't do that after the ECJ made there ruling just before Christmas. I just can't see how the tories would be able to do it without alienating the majority of there voters and we only have time for the tories to do this now.

There has been a lot of discussion about this, the conclusion of which was that it's unknown, but that if A50 was re-submitted then the period before exit would be the same as the period before exit when the revocation was submitted (i.e. if you revoked with 60 days to go then that's what you now have before exit upon submitting your A50 notice again), OR, your exit period is from when you first submitted - so you are out immediately if you submit your notice after the 29th of March.

In that latter scenario a transition period would of course be impossible, as you can't agree a transition without a withdrawal agreement, and you can't sign that until you've submitted A50, and as soon as you submit A50 you are out - and can't sign a WA.

= It's a mess, but the EU have to make using revocation as a ploy to stop the clock deeply undesirable, or it would be the tool of choice for Hungary, Poland etc to engage in brinkmanship.

I think we will cut the red wire with 3 seconds to go.

My staff are refusing to work on any more flow charts. Stick them up your arse, they said. Divided Britain.

I've seen those films. The clock has to end on 007 seconds to go