RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
The next stage if we ever get there will go on much longer

oh yes, that's the daft thing about the WA being called a deal, as if it is 'the' deal. But it won't be played out tortuously in public like this attritional shyte.

Today the government announced a tariff schedule they've lit upon without consulting businesses as that was too tricky for them, I suspect these sort of activities will draw attention

I think they've done it without consulting the WTO as well haven't they?
My understanding is that a treaty-free open border in Ireland means that we have an open border with the entire world, for example. But I could very easily be wrong.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: oh yes, that's the daft thing about the WA being called a deal, as if it is 'the' deal. But it won't be played out tortuously in public like this attritional shyte.

Today the government announced a tariff schedule they've lit upon without consulting businesses as that was too tricky for them, I suspect these sort of activities will draw attention

I think they've done it without consulting the WTO as well haven't they?
My understanding is that a treaty-free open border in Ireland means that we have an open border with the entire world, for example. But I could very easily be wrong.

Yep. WTO rules are that you must treat all members the same.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: oh yes, that's the daft thing about the WA being called a deal, as if it is 'the' deal. But it won't be played out tortuously in public like this attritional shyte.

Today the government announced a tariff schedule they've lit upon without consulting businesses as that was too tricky for them, I suspect these sort of activities will draw attention

I think they've done it without consulting the WTO as well haven't they?
My understanding is that a treaty-free open border in Ireland means that we have an open border with the entire world, for example. But I could very easily be wrong.

Open to anyone who can export to Ireland at the very least, taking back control means a whopping big hole in border checks

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
The next stage if we ever get there will go on much longer

oh yes, that's the daft thing about the WA being called a deal, as if it is 'the' deal. But it won't be played out tortuously in public like this attritional shyte.

Today the government announced a tariff schedule they've lit upon without consulting businesses as that was too tricky for them, I suspect these sort of activities will draw attention

yes, but not the chinese water torture of these ridiculous votes in the commons

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: oh yes, that's the daft thing about the WA being called a deal, as if it is 'the' deal. But it won't be played out tortuously in public like this attritional shyte.

Today the government announced a tariff schedule they've lit upon without consulting businesses as that was too tricky for them, I suspect these sort of activities will draw attention

yes, but not the chinese water torture of these ridiculous votes in the commons

I don't mind the votes, it's having no idea what we want to achieve other than all the benefits and none of the costs and consequently no idea how to do it

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Today the government announced a tariff schedule they've lit upon without consulting businesses as that was too tricky for them, I suspect these sort of activities will draw attention

yes, but not the chinese water torture of these ridiculous votes in the commons

I don't mind the votes, it's having no idea what we want to achieve other than all the benefits and none of the costs and consequently no idea how to do it

I mind both....

Banquo wrote: I mind both....

You're an angry man though, I'm much more sanguine about the whole affair

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I mind both....

You're an angry man though, I'm much more sanguine about the whole affair

Oh yes...

Lol....ERG left looking totally bereft now.

Banquo wrote:Lol....ERG left looking totally bereft now.

Have they run out of EnRG?

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:Lol....ERG left looking totally bereft now.

Have they run out of EnRG?

Think May is getting run out of town.

We might be back to Bercow being key if (when) ERG try to subvert the will of parliament as part of their plan to restore the sovereignty of parliament

Banquo wrote:Lol....ERG left looking totally bereft now.

They're having the last laugh as things currently stand. If we don't have a coherent plan of what we actually want, we'll get no more than a 2 month extension from the EU and that solely so they can get their own No Deal planning done.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Lol....ERG left looking totally bereft now.

They're having the last laugh as things currently stand. If we don't have a coherent plan of what we actually want, we'll get no more than a 2 month extension from the EU and that solely so they can get their own No Deal planning done.

Puja

So what actually happens if we pass the legislation voted for tonight to take no deal off the table, which I'd understood to be possible unilaterally; the way I read what had happened was ERG wouldn't get their no deal, and then we'd have an indefinite extension by default. Do you know, therefore, that the EU can effectively kick us out if we change our statute book?

I almost wonder if some of the ERG are secretly relieved. With Brexit, they lose their purpose in life and they also get to take responsibility for any future cockups. If something else happens they can default to protesting and blaming others.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Lol....ERG left looking totally bereft now.

They're having the last laugh as things currently stand. If we don't have a coherent plan of what we actually want, we'll get no more than a 2 month extension from the EU and that solely so they can get their own No Deal planning done.

Puja

So what actually happens if we pass the legislation voted for tonight to take no deal off the table, which I'd understood to be possible unilaterally; the way I read what had happened was ERG wouldn't get their no deal, and then we'd have an indefinite extension by default. Do you know, therefore, that the EU can effectively kick us out if we change our statute book?

Unfortunately, the only things we can do unilaterally are leave without a deal or withdraw Article 50 completely. It would be technically possible to withdraw Article 50 and then resubmit it to get another 2 years, but I can't see that course of events as a) withdrawing it at all would be "betraying the will of the people (TM)" and thus politically toxic and b) it'd take an act of parliament to withdraw it and another one to resubmit it and I'm not sure there'd be a definite majority to resubmit it.

Taking no deal off the table tonight didn't actually achieve anything - we can say all we like that we don't want no deal, but we've already legally committed to leaving on 29th March by invoking Article 50. Unless we agree a deal, get the EU to agree to an extension, or withdraw Article 50, then we're leaving without any deal at all.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
They're having the last laugh as things currently stand. If we don't have a coherent plan of what we actually want, we'll get no more than a 2 month extension from the EU and that solely so they can get their own No Deal planning done.

Puja

So what actually happens if we pass the legislation voted for tonight to take no deal off the table, which I'd understood to be possible unilaterally; the way I read what had happened was ERG wouldn't get their no deal, and then we'd have an indefinite extension by default. Do you know, therefore, that the EU can effectively kick us out if we change our statute book?

Unfortunately, the only things we can do unilaterally are leave without a deal or withdraw Article 50 completely. It would be technically possible to withdraw Article 50 and then resubmit it to get another 2 years, but I can't see that course of events as a) withdrawing it at all would be "betraying the will of the people (TM)" and thus politically toxic and b) it'd take an act of parliament to withdraw it and another one to resubmit it and I'm not sure there'd be a definite majority to resubmit it.

Taking no deal off the table tonight didn't actually achieve anything - we can say all we like that we don't want no deal, but we've already legally committed to leaving on 29th March by invoking Article 50. Unless we agree a deal, get the EU to agree to an extension, or withdraw Article 50, then we're leaving without any deal at all.

Puja

Wouldn't it technically mean that we'd need to revoke A50? As without an agreed WA, and with ND off the table, it's the only option...

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
They're having the last laugh as things currently stand. If we don't have a coherent plan of what we actually want, we'll get no more than a 2 month extension from the EU and that solely so they can get their own No Deal planning done.

Puja

So what actually happens if we pass the legislation voted for tonight to take no deal off the table, which I'd understood to be possible unilaterally; the way I read what had happened was ERG wouldn't get their no deal, and then we'd have an indefinite extension by default. Do you know, therefore, that the EU can effectively kick us out if we change our statute book?

Unfortunately, the only things we can do unilaterally are leave without a deal or withdraw Article 50 completely. It would be technically possible to withdraw Article 50 and then resubmit it to get another 2 years, but I can't see that course of events as a) withdrawing it at all would be "betraying the will of the people (TM)" and thus politically toxic and b) it'd take an act of parliament to withdraw it and another one to resubmit it and I'm not sure there'd be a definite majority to resubmit it.

Taking no deal off the table tonight didn't actually achieve anything - we can say all we like that we don't want no deal, but we've already legally committed to leaving on 29th March by invoking Article 50. Unless we agree a deal, get the EU to agree to an extension, or withdraw Article 50, then we're leaving without any deal at all.

Puja

I knew May couldn’t ‘take no deal off the table’ but I thought Parliament could pass an act to make it so. So what actually happens should Parliament do this, nothing is agreed by 29th, and no extension ‘granted’ by the EU?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:
So what actually happens if we pass the legislation voted for tonight to take no deal off the table, which I'd understood to be possible unilaterally; the way I read what had happened was ERG wouldn't get their no deal, and then we'd have an indefinite extension by default. Do you know, therefore, that the EU can effectively kick us out if we change our statute book?

Unfortunately, the only things we can do unilaterally are leave without a deal or withdraw Article 50 completely. It would be technically possible to withdraw Article 50 and then resubmit it to get another 2 years, but I can't see that course of events as a) withdrawing it at all would be "betraying the will of the people (TM)" and thus politically toxic and b) it'd take an act of parliament to withdraw it and another one to resubmit it and I'm not sure there'd be a definite majority to resubmit it.

Taking no deal off the table tonight didn't actually achieve anything - we can say all we like that we don't want no deal, but we've already legally committed to leaving on 29th March by invoking Article 50. Unless we agree a deal, get the EU to agree to an extension, or withdraw Article 50, then we're leaving without any deal at all.

Puja

I knew May couldn’t ‘take no deal off the table’ but I thought Parliament could pass an act to make it so. So what actually happens should Parliament do this, nothing is agreed by 29th, and no extension ‘granted’ by the EU?

Surely we need to revoke A50...

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Unfortunately, the only things we can do unilaterally are leave without a deal or withdraw Article 50 completely. It would be technically possible to withdraw Article 50 and then resubmit it to get another 2 years, but I can't see that course of events as a) withdrawing it at all would be "betraying the will of the people (TM)" and thus politically toxic and b) it'd take an act of parliament to withdraw it and another one to resubmit it and I'm not sure there'd be a definite majority to resubmit it.

Taking no deal off the table tonight didn't actually achieve anything - we can say all we like that we don't want no deal, but we've already legally committed to leaving on 29th March by invoking Article 50. Unless we agree a deal, get the EU to agree to an extension, or withdraw Article 50, then we're leaving without any deal at all.

Puja

I knew May couldn’t ‘take no deal off the table’ but I thought Parliament could pass an act to make it so. So what actually happens should Parliament do this, nothing is agreed by 29th, and no extension ‘granted’ by the EU?

Surely we need to revoke A50...

I can’t see them voting for that either, mind the Tories are doing what they want randomly at the moment. Seems to be coming down to- WA with a short extension to enact all the necessary legislation or a 2 year extension whilst we sort ourselves out.....or a GE (which would likely also lead to the 2 year extension) suggested by Tories last night. The long extension would also bring the joy of fielding candidates in the European elections, and a new set of leaders to deal with in the EU. Couldn’t make this sh&t up.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:
I knew May couldn’t ‘take no deal off the table’ but I thought Parliament could pass an act to make it so. So what actually happens should Parliament do this, nothing is agreed by 29th, and no extension ‘granted’ by the EU?

Surely we need to revoke A50...

I can’t see them voting for that either, mind the Tories are doing what they want randomly at the moment. Seems to be coming down to- WA with a short extension to enact all the necessary legislation or a 2 year extension whilst we sort ourselves out.....or a GE (which would likely also lead to the 2 year extension) suggested by Tories last night. The long extension would also bring the joy of fielding candidates in the European elections, and a new set of leaders to deal with in the EU. Couldn’t make this sh&t up.

Have they not already voted for it, though? They've rejected the WA and ruled out No deal. So if the EU refuse an extension, come the 29th the only option open to the UK government is to revoke A50.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Surely we need to revoke A50...

I can’t see them voting for that either, mind the Tories are doing what they want randomly at the moment. Seems to be coming down to- WA with a short extension to enact all the necessary legislation or a 2 year extension whilst we sort ourselves out.....or a GE (which would likely also lead to the 2 year extension) suggested by Tories last night. The long extension would also bring the joy of fielding candidates in the European elections, and a new set of leaders to deal with in the EU. Couldn’t make this sh&t up.

Have they not already voted for it, though? They've rejected the WA and ruled out No deal. So if the EU refuse an extension, come the 29th the only option open to the UK government is to revoke A50.

No, they have had a non binding vote to not leave in any circumstances with no deal. Very different to voting to revoke A 50 and enacting said legislation. This is Rees-Moggs point they keep ignoring, they actually have to do something difficult. We haven't even voted on asking for an extension yet. We could conceivably run out of time should the EU say non to an extension. Not sure you can use a series of no's to do something active like revoking A50; then again, I have no real clue

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:
So what actually happens if we pass the legislation voted for tonight to take no deal off the table, which I'd understood to be possible unilaterally; the way I read what had happened was ERG wouldn't get their no deal, and then we'd have an indefinite extension by default. Do you know, therefore, that the EU can effectively kick us out if we change our statute book?

Unfortunately, the only things we can do unilaterally are leave without a deal or withdraw Article 50 completely. It would be technically possible to withdraw Article 50 and then resubmit it to get another 2 years, but I can't see that course of events as a) withdrawing it at all would be "betraying the will of the people (TM)" and thus politically toxic and b) it'd take an act of parliament to withdraw it and another one to resubmit it and I'm not sure there'd be a definite majority to resubmit it.

Taking no deal off the table tonight didn't actually achieve anything - we can say all we like that we don't want no deal, but we've already legally committed to leaving on 29th March by invoking Article 50. Unless we agree a deal, get the EU to agree to an extension, or withdraw Article 50, then we're leaving without any deal at all.

Puja

I knew May couldn’t ‘take no deal off the table’ but I thought Parliament could pass an act to make it so. So what actually happens should Parliament do this, nothing is agreed by 29th, and no extension ‘granted’ by the EU?

Badically unless A50 was withdrawn, we'd leave with no deal, regardless of what acts Parliament has passed. A50 says we're leaving on 29th March. We either get the EU to agree to extend it or we withdraw it - any other option means we leave, deal or no.

Stom wrote:Have they not already voted for it, though? They've rejected the WA and ruled out No deal. So if the EU refuse an extension, come the 29th the only option open to the UK government is to revoke A50.

None of the proposals so far have the magic words of, "if no extension is forthcoming, withdraw Article 50 until we know what's going on." They just say, "If no deal is agreed, we should get an extension."

And unfortunately Rees-Mogg is right that we've passed a law to activate A50, so I believe we'd need another one specifically to withdraw it, so May can't even do it unilaterally - she'd need to get a majority in Parliament to do so.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Unfortunately, the only things we can do unilaterally are leave without a deal or withdraw Article 50 completely. It would be technically possible to withdraw Article 50 and then resubmit it to get another 2 years, but I can't see that course of events as a) withdrawing it at all would be "betraying the will of the people (TM)" and thus politically toxic and b) it'd take an act of parliament to withdraw it and another one to resubmit it and I'm not sure there'd be a definite majority to resubmit it.

Taking no deal off the table tonight didn't actually achieve anything - we can say all we like that we don't want no deal, but we've already legally committed to leaving on 29th March by invoking Article 50. Unless we agree a deal, get the EU to agree to an extension, or withdraw Article 50, then we're leaving without any deal at all.

Puja

I knew May couldn’t ‘take no deal off the table’ but I thought Parliament could pass an act to make it so. So what actually happens should Parliament do this, nothing is agreed by 29th, and no extension ‘granted’ by the EU?

Badically unless A50 was withdrawn, we'd leave with no deal, regardless of what acts Parliament has passed. A50 says we're leaving on 29th March. We either get the EU to agree to extend it or we withdraw it - any other option means we leave, deal or no.

Stom wrote:Have they not already voted for it, though? They've rejected the WA and ruled out No deal. So if the EU refuse an extension, come the 29th the only option open to the UK government is to revoke A50.

None of the proposals so far have the magic words of, "if no extension is forthcoming, withdraw Article 50 until we know what's going on." They just say, "If no deal is agreed, we should get an extension."

And unfortunately Rees-Mogg is right that we've passed a law to activate A50, so I believe we'd need another one specifically to withdraw it, so May can't even do it unilaterally - she'd need to get a majority in Parliament to do so.

Puja

Shorthand is no one has a plan bar May, and hers isn’t acceptable for many reasons, given it’s a blind attempt at compromise.

Banquo wrote:Shorthand is no one has a plan bar May, and hers isn’t acceptable for many reasons, given it’s a blind attempt at compromise.

And now there's going to be yet another vote on exactly the same deal, hooray! This one will solve all of the problems forever!

Why can May keep proposing votes until enough people are scared that she wins one, but having a referendum to confirm which of the three choices people want is defying democracy?

Also, this headline is the perfect summation of our politics right now:



Puja