Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[southeastone]

Interesting section in the withdrawal bill jason is so excited about. It says the UK will impose no hard border between N and S ireland. Will take no steps which make the border more of a border in any respect.

.

And so with Junker telling the Irish parliament that the EU will not impose a border under any circumstances it seems that is another "problem" that is melting away

 

[Jason]

And so with Junker telling the Irish parliament that the EU will not impose a border under any circumstances it seems that is another "problem" that is melting away

Yes, I think this is correct.

It's quite hard to see what the EU is worried about in terms of physical goods. Any large companies are going to comply with a MaxFac border. For goods moving from Ireland direct to France (by ferry) there are already checks on the ferry, so there's a second line. The problem the EU seems bothered about is that individuals will take goods bought in the UK across the border into Ireland. Technically this is smuggling, but it is very low grade.

 

[dandelion]

The UK is clear that there will be no hard border. It will be MaxFac.

But the bill does rather say there will be no more difficulty at the border than there is now. Which sounds a lot like no extra form filling at all, whether it is done in advance or whatever.

It might even be read that the government cannot sign any withdrawal agreemnet, treaty, etc, which would have the effect of creatin such a border. It might at a stretch forbid the government from leaving the EU.

The EU will have to accept a porous border here.

Why? It is the Uk which has promised not to do anything which jeopardise the border.


Another interesting development... Independent article 'More than 50' Tory MPs prepared to defy Theresa May to stop no-deal Brexit

Says 50 tory MPs are prepared to vote against hard Brexit.

 

[Jason]

But the bill does rather say there will be no more difficulty at the border than there is now. Which sounds a lot like no extra form filling at all, whether it is done in advance or whatever.

It might even be read that the government cannot sign any withdrawal agreemnet, treaty, etc, which would have the effect of creatin such a border. It might at a stretch forbid the government from leaving the EU.

Why? It is the Uk which has promised not to do anything which jeopardise the border.


Another interesting development... Independent article 'More than 50' Tory MPs prepared to defy Theresa May to stop no-deal Brexit

Says 50 tory MPs are prepared to vote against hard Brexit.

What makes you think hard Brexit would require a vote?

If negotiations break down at the last, then the consequence is a no deal Brexit. In this situation there is no alternative. If there is a break-down with the EU there is no way they are going to do us some sort of "favour", the Remainers' fantasy of a post-poned Brexit. The choice will be between no deal and no deal. I suppose if MPs really want to vote then that is fine. Maybe they would like to vote on allowing the sun to rise and set. It would be an utterly pointless vote.

 

[southeastone]

Why? It is the Uk which has promised not to do anything which jeopardise the border.


.

yes and so have the EU through Junker so that's put to bed then

 

[southeastone]

Seems the BBC and others made a bit of a balls up of their reporting on the anti Brexit march, they put out the images only to be told that that was the pro Brexit independence march, must be the first time the BBC has covered anything pro Brexit

 

[dandelion]

What makes you think hard Brexit would require a vote?
If negotiations break down at the last, then the consequence is a no deal Brexit.

It all depends on parliament. If parliament has a majority for it, then they could formally authorise someone to revoke the application to leave the EU. Probably get it done within a week. Within a day even. In a sense all this faffing over the current bill is irrelevant, because power ultimately lies in the the hands of parliament and the crown in unison, not at all with minsiters. Ministers are just functionaries doing jobs parliament has ordered them to do.

It is perfectly possible for parliament to appoint Ken Clarke as sole person authorised to conduct negotiations for the UK. Or the commons doorman. Or their milkman for that matter. Anyone. The thing about an unwritten constitution is you just make up the rules as you go along.

If there is a break-down with the EU there is no way they are going to do us some sort of "favour",

What do you mean by breakdown? They are simply not going to agree some proposal by the current UK negotiators. We appoint some new negotiators, and off we go again. It is the UK side which is refusing to engage with negotiations - The UK government still hasnt said what it wants from brexit with most of the negotiating time elapsed - its utterly ridiculous.

The choice will be between no deal and no deal.

No. The Uk has not left until it has left. The current deadline might be extended indefinitely. We might withdraw notice. If we leave into the so-called transition period, nothing in practice will have changed and it would be very simple administratively to go through a fast track rejoin.

It is quite possible the Uk could end in a limbo of indefinitely extended transition, which is finally resolved by rejoining.

In the long run the tories are running negotiations and they are going to get the blame when it goes wrong. We have already seen what their view really is, because last year Theresa May was obliged to agree EU terms for a withdrawal agreement, or declare she wanted 'no deal'. She agreed the terms. Presumably when it reaches another crunch point she will agree the terms again. Since the Uk has already agreed these terms, how could it withdraw that agreement now and retain any international credibility?

The problem is that it is impossible for any government to deliver what leave promised. Leave lied. The tories are guaranteed to fail, and they know it. So they keep stalling. Everyone can now see this is true.

 

[Drifterwood]

I understand you live in Greece. Have you noticed how poor most people in Greece now are?

Every decision that has been taken about Greece has prioritised Greece paying external creditors, including the ECB. There has been "success" in this issue. Greece has given all the blood the vampire wants. There is no good outcome for the people of Greece. There are a few rich foreigners using their foreign-earnt wealth to live comfortably in Greece, and I suppose this does bring some trickle of income into Greece.

When you pontificate like this, either you don't know what you are talking about, or if you do, then you roll out a pile of manure to support your ideology.

Greece has turned a big corner. The Greeks have survived their London Blitz. Their cash economy was the key, and on we go with our 300 days of sunshine. Keep coming, keep bringing the cash.

 

[dandelion]

So...Eu worked for ireland and worked for greece?

If the UK leaves the EU, we will get to see how bad it can get if you choose to leave.

 

[Jason]

Article 50 would have to be revoked by UK, EC and all EU nations. This just isn't going to happen. Some EU nations want the UK to leave (Italy, Czech R, perhaps Poland). Even if there were the will to revoke article 50 there are issues around the legality. It may be that revocation would have to be some sort of new application, so with the euro and schengen.

 

[Jason]

When you pontificate like this, either you don't know what you are talking about, or if you do, then you roll out a pile of manure to support your ideology.

Greece has turned a big corner. The Greeks have survived their London Blitz. Their cash economy was the key, and on we go with our 300 days of sunshine. Keep coming, keep bringing the cash.

Yes I do understand that Greece has turned a corner. Your Blitz analogy works. They now face the devastation.

 

[dandelion]

Article 50 would have to be revoked by UK, EC and all EU nations. This just isn't going to happen. .

No, the Uk can revoke unilaterally. There is nothing to say we cannot do this.

However, I think the UK could persuade the other nations to let us leave. Some adjustment of the budget, perhaps. Giving up Uk vetos and agreeing larger UK funding. It would still be cheaper than leaving. Much cheaper. The Brexit leave promised cannot be delivered.

Quite what leave would think of us paying more and probably agreeing some other consessions I dont know. But I have long predicted the final outcome will be a Uk more integrated into the EU than before.

The point is, while leavers obejct to variour things, remainers dont. So what a leaver might see as a horendous concession, remainers might think perfectly acctable. Polling says we have already moved to a remain majority, and has for some time.

 

[Jason]

No, the Uk can revoke unilaterally.

You cannot possibly know this. There are august specialists who argue both ways. An article presenting an argument both ways is here.

Revocation would have to be agreed as being possible by both the UK's Supreme Court and the ECJ. The UK Supreme Court has not formally tested this, but the previous constitutional judgments assumed that it was irrevocable. On the topic of irrevocability the key comment is "We are content to proceed on the basis that that is correct, without expressing any view of our own." The ECJ would have to form its own decision. I think I heard that this is being taken to the ECJ so we might actually get an ECJ view.

I've started by saying that "you cannot possibly know this", and I need to be careful about suggesting I know something, in effect falling into the same trap. I know Tusk has said he thinks it could be revoked. However it seems to me that the legal argument that it cannot be revoked is very strong. If it can be revoked then the UK could revoke it the day before and immediately re-submit. Any nation could start playing a game of extracting concessions from the EU. It seems to me that the legal argument that it cannot be revoked is far stronger (and tends to be backed by the most august figures).

The practicalities of getting a judgment through the UK's Supreme Court and the ECJ are that neither are super-fast, especially as any possible result is likely to be challenged in both. I don't know quite what the timetable would be. Could it be done in three months? I'm guessing more like 6-12 months. I suspect that by the time the UK parliament gets as far as considering a deal, or indeed no deal, it will be too late to go through the courts. In effect the only option is going to be deal or no deal. It might not be even this. If the deal to be offered looks very poor then I suspect the UK diplomats might actually push for the EU Brexit negotiations to collapse so that the only option is no deal.

I think the reality is that either there will be a deal which is backed by the government (and which surely should be voted through parliament) or there will be no deal, with this option presented at the last possible moment. There are all sorts of hurdles. If the opposition decide to vote against a deal (perhaps to try to topple the government) then there are hard-core Brexiteers who will vote for no deal. In effect I think the opposition could force no deal. Let's assume however that this will not happen. I think we will get a deal. I think the government will whip Conservative/DUP MPs to vote for it, and that alone should really ensure it goes through. There are challenges for the opposition. Do they really want to back no deal? I think we have the potential for an almost unanimous vote in favour of the deal. Politically this would be the country coming together and a massive endorsement of what the government has achieved.

 

[dandelion]

You cannot possibly know this.

I know it can revoke. Whether this will be accepted at the european court, no one knows. But it will quite likely be influenced by how sincerely the EU means it.

Revocation would have to be agreed as being possible by both the UK's Supreme Court and the ECJ.

It certainly would not. The UK court has nothing to do with it, except as a stepping stone for a case going to the ecj.

The UK Supreme Court has not formally tested this, but the previous constitutional judgments assumed that it was irrevocable.

Only because the parties to the case both argued this to be the case. UK courts do not comment on agreed facts, however stupid, but arbitrate what is disputed.

"We are content to proceed on the basis that that is correct, without expressing any view of our own."

Exactly. this was the view of the plaintiffs, not the court.

I've started by saying that "you cannot possibly know this", and I need to be careful about suggesting I know something,

yes you do. In fact you already broke that rule in the previous post, which is why I said you are wrong.

If it can be revoked then the UK could revoke it the day before and immediately re-submit

indeed it could. Many have said the treaty is less than ideal.

. Any nation could start playing a game of extracting concessions from the EU.

perhaps that is why the EU isnt going to give any concessions to anyone, including the UK? The EU told us its terms before negotiations began. Leave asid it was rot and the EU would change. It wont. there will be no special deal for the UK. never was the slightest chance of it.

The practicalities of getting a judgment through the UK's Supreme Court and the ECJ are that neither are super-fast,

didnt the ECJ say it would fast track any such referral? A matter of a few weeks, I would think. i'm sure the government law officer could arrange for any case in UK courts to be heard at once.

In the last analysis parliament is supreme. if it chooses and doesnt like the government deal it could pass a short act in one day authorising someone to negotiate on behalf of the UK and preventing the government from interfering. that is the wonderful thing about an unwritten constitution. It can be changed instantly. (havnt you lauded it in the past?)

Aside from revoking notice to quit, the EU could simply extend the negotiating time limit. Either indefinitely so it never expires and the Uk never leaves, or for 5 years , or until treaty renegotiation, or some other convenient point when the treaties could be amended for whatever solution everyone wants. There is absolutely no need for the UK to leave.

 

[Jason]

@dandelion, you are advancing the Remoaner argument that Brexit can be stopped. However:

1) Con, DUP and Lab have manifesto commitments to ensure Brexit. Lab's official position now is that they support this.

2) even were Con, DUP and Lab to change their mind then you are suggesting at best a legal process with a disputed likely outcome.

3) the EU's politics matter. They don't want UK to leave, but neither do they want to be messed around. They've accepted that Brexit will happen and will ensure the UK leaves.

4) 52% voted for Brexit and 80% subsequently voted for parties that support Brexit. It would be the biggest ever over-turning of democracy were Brexit not to happen. Politicians who frustrate Brexit will be kicked out.

 

[Perados]

Meanwhile in Bavaria...

After all the fighting between CDU and CSU, the CSU is down to 40%. Seehofer (head of CSU) and Söder (MP of Bavaria) are seen as trouble maker and as the core of the problems. Looks like more and more Bavarians don't support them anymore.

Seehofer once more made clear, if Merkel won't find a EU solution, he would start acting. But he also said this wouldn't threaten the gov (something everyone else disagrees with) - some newspapers reported he said "I can't work with that woman anymore".

In the past week, Söder and Kurz (chancellor of Austria) have met and supported each others position, telling each other how good their ideas are. That we would have to protect national boarders and interests...
Kurz said, it's a good thing if Germany would run boarder controls and reject every refugee who already is registered in an other EU country.

But then the EU meeting happened. Suddenly everything sounds very different out of Austria.
Kurz has noticed, if Germany refuses refugees to enter and Italy refuse them to take back, they would have to stay in Austria... oh, pore little boy never noticed that Austria is right between Germany and Italy until Europe has told him. Better go back to school and stop playing Hitler II.

 

[dandelion]

@dandelion4) 52% voted for Brexit and 80% subsequently voted for parties that support Brexit.

No. About 1/3 voted for Brexit. You mean just over half of those who bothered to vote. This is important, because those who didnt bother to turn out probably mostly want everything to run perfectly without them having to get involved, and if we leave the EU it will not.

Of the 80%, that would perhaps be 10% voting UKIP. About 70% voting labour and Con, neither of whom support Brexit.

It would be the biggest ever over-turning of democracy were Brexit not to happen.

1/3 of the people who were persuaded by being told a pack of lies? come off it!

Politicians who frustrate Brexit will be kicked out.

Labour politicians who frustrate Brexit will probably get bigger majorities. More tricky for the tories, who had a lot of leave support, some of which would be hard core.

 

[Jason]

No. About 1/3 voted for Brexit. You mean just over half of those who bothered to vote. This is important, because those who didnt bother to turn out probably mostly want everything to run perfectly without them having to get involved, and if we leave the EU it will not.

Of the 80%, that would perhaps be 10% voting UKIP. About 70% voting labour and Con, neither of whom support Brexit.

1/3 of the people who were persuaded by being told a pack of lies? come off it!

Labour politicians who frustrate Brexit will probably get bigger majorities. More tricky for the tories, who had a lot of leave support, some of which would be hard core.

Democracy works by counting the votes of people who vote. The @dandelion system of saying that the non-voters back @dandelion isn't democracy.

I don't think we will have an election before 2022. By then Brexit will be done and dusted. If we are very lucky the EU might have collapsed. I think the electorate will have woken up to the evil that is Corbyn and Momentum. I do not see the people of the UK voting for terrorist-supporting Corbyn, spy Corbyn, anti-semitic Corbyn, or indeed for Corbyn who loathes the UK.

 

[Perados]

BMW...
A hard Brexit with boarder problems (trade barriers, higher tariffs and increase in transport cost and time) would mean they would have to close factories in the UK

 

[Jason]

BMW...
A hard Brexit with boarder problems (trade barriers, higher tariffs and increase in transport cost and time) would mean they would have to close factories in the UK

There is no doubt that a no deal Brexit would cause problems for the UK. However, it would also cause problems for the EU. Presumably it is something we all want to avoid.

If it happens I suspect the UK government will immediately make CT reductions, big ones. Companies like BMW will make a decision taking into account a range of factors: the tariffs the EU has put up, the CT in the UK, the location of a skilled workforce.