The Brexit process

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Red and White? Poland, surely.

Greenland, Britain's future is in your hands gloves.

 

[Diamond]

Miller accepts irrevocability of Art 50. NI case is more correct on the technical but it is in documentation as an aside rather than an arguement. Neither are going down that route.
(Is irrovocable in sense of not being able to be unilaterally undone.)

That does not necessarily mean that the issue is not justiciable, nor does it mean that the court is somehow barred from seeking submissions on that point on its own initiative, however my expectation was that this would most likely be introduced by one of the interveners from the devolved governments.

 

[Diamond]

I think there's a lot of hot air being expelled about a50 revocability. If there is the political will to allow it to be revoked, it can be revoked - some clause in some law somewhere can be interpreted in such a way as to allow it.

But the overriding point here is that the Supreme Court is under a duty to seek a preliminary reference to the CJEU on a matter of EU law, which to my mind a50 revocability clearly is given that it concerns the interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.

However your point about political will is also a good one.

There is a curious tension there between this drive toward creating certainty in the application of EU law within a supra-national jurisdiction (which goes to a key Brexiteer argument around sovereignty) and the fact of the matter that the only thing that keeps the whole show on the road is intergovernmental political will as developed through international treaties.

 

[rutabowa]

It's certainly interesting times thats for sure

 

[rutabowa]

veerrry interesting.

 

[rutabowa]

unheimlich interessant

 

[Dr. Furface]

Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.

So probably a French one.

Yeah and I'm dreaming of a White Christmas!

 

[Diamond]

And then there are the devolution issues...

 

[Diamond]

Said to be very influential article here by Lord Millett in the Supreme Court Yearbook on the Miller litigation that cogently sets out a view that supports the government's arguments:

https://www.ukscy.org.uk/wp-content...-2016-7-The-UK-Supreme-Court-Yearbook-190.pdf

 

[CrabbedOne]

In more ways than one, stay in the EU Europe will fuck with Ireland's 'No need for tax, mate' regime, if it leaves the EU there will be war especially in the rural areas, farmers are very much attached to their EU payments as most Irish farms are small.

Well with both Trump and May talking about slashing Corporate Tax that the RoI tax haven policies might not be much use.

Not to mention there's fuck all chance of getting out of the Euro without roaring inflation and losing your shirt. Mark Blythe was predicting the Euro might well outlast the EU as it exists at the moment.

 

[bi0boy]

Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.

So probably a French one.

The new RWB Union:

 

[brogdale]

Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.

So probably a French one.

 

[Diamond]

Pannick now up for Miller

 

[CrabbedOne]

If the UK wants an extension of the negotiating period after the 2 years following Article 50 are up, it's going to have to get the approval of Ireland and Malta - and Estonia, Luxembourg, etc...

Yes, just negotiating an extension could take a fair chunk of two years while the UK grovels to 30+ different actors involved in A50.

Let's face it the whole time limited A50 thing was structured to favour the remaining EU countries. When you welch on a complex contract in business the exit clauses are often like that. You just have to suck it up and take it. They are going to play hardball to get the best deal for them and they are in competition with each other. It'll just get more belligerent on their side the shakier the EU looks. The results unlikely to coincide that much with British interests even if half a dozen big EU countries would like it to.

In The Guardian UK will have under 18 months to reach deal, says EU Brexit broker

...
“Time will be very short,” he said in Brussels, pointing out that at the beginning of the formal two-year article 50 exit process the European council would need time to define its stance and at the end the council, the European parliament and the UK government would all have to approve the deal.

“It’s clear that the actual negotiation period will be shorter than two years,” he said. “All in all, there will be less than 18 months. If, as Theresa May has said, we receive notification by the end of March, it is safe to say the negotiations could start a few weeks later and article 50 agreement would have to be reached by October 2018.”
...

The bum's rush.

Well that's only the European Commission’s chief Brexit broker so the Council can ultimately tell him to sod off but that might be realistic as the initial entry and exit phases of the A50 process probably take at least a few months.

18 months is a short time for a major bureaucratic activity involving hundreds of people. In my experience just signing off a set of formal documents with 30 or so parties does not happen quickly. I used to allow at least a month at the end of a project and that nearly always slid forward. Getting the thing properly scoped and with buy in from sponsors took months before getting down to the nitty gritty.

 

[weltweit]

And there will be plenty of EU countries looking to get movement from the UK on other issues before they will support an overall agreement. Will Spain miss the chance to push the Gibraltar question for example?

 

[gosub]

Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.

So probably a French one.

she, yet again,isn't actually telling us anything. Why do journalists bother reporting it.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

she, yet again,isn't actually telling us anything. Why do journalists bother reporting it.

Cos they are lazy fuckers who are terrible at their jobs, would be my guess.

 

[not-bono-ever]

I never got involved with the original brexit discussions on here as I couldn't be arsed my argue/verbalise my mechanistic concerns of how the fucking fuck this scheme was supposed to play out. What a fucking mess .

 

[CrabbedOne]

Think of it all as a great unleashing creative chaos. Bit like the Arab Spring but run by a bunch of twits with a critical mass of emboldened stupidity.

 

[teqniq]

Maybe entitled stupidity is more appropriate.

 

[CrabbedOne]

Maybe entitled stupidity is more appropriate.

One follows the other.

 

[gosub]

Think of it all as a great unleashing creative chaos. Bit like the Arab Spring but run by a bunch of twits with a critical mass of emboldened stupidity.

We have a Golgafrichan B-Ark government. Six months of deliberation over Brexit ...and they've worked oout what the colour scheme should be straight out of Restaurant at the end of the universe.

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Mainly Macro The OBR and the impact of Brexit

...
The Treasury analysis of Brexit assumed that this lower trade intensity would also reduce productivity. The OBR do not include this effect, calling it too uncertain. This is a slightly surprising judgement. To see this, look at this piece by Maurice Obstfeld, chief economist at the IMF. Here is a quote:

“Empirical research supports Ricardo’s fundamental insight that trade fosters productivity [by increasing efficiency through comparative advantage]. But the productivity and growth benefits of trade go far beyond Ricardo’s insight. With trade, competition from abroad forces domestic producers to raise their game. Trade also offers a wider variety of intermediate production inputs firms can use to produce at lower cost. Finally, exporters can learn better techniques through their engagement in foreign markets, and are forced to compete for customers by raising efficiency and upgrading product quality (for example, Dabla-Norris and Duval, 2016).”​

...

Experts, they haven't gone away you know.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Dunno why anyone's concerned, in the nearly 6 months since the vote the government has come up with plans detailed enough to take up a whole side of A4.

 

[gosub]

Govt to reveal Brexit plan before EU exit begins

clearly they were just waiting on Theresa May to OK the stationary colours.

 

[CrabbedOne]

Dunno why anyone's concerned, in the nearly 6 months since the vote the government has come up with plans detailed enough to take up a whole side of A4.

View attachment 96665

That's almost a 20 slide PowerPoint deck once you add the obligatory pictures of people pointing at things etc. I could knock that up in the lunch break. We've invaded countries based on less.

Adding some animation for "Having our cake and eating it!" would be most amusing.

Unfortunately the EU folk seem to be more like this chap:

 

[marty21]

I have got involved in rows with a fair few kippers on line elsewhere they insist that Brexit is hard Brexit, and that is the Brexit they voted for and they get the right hump when I say that they voted to Brexit but the government will decide what sort of Brexit they will get and there is fuck all they can do about that. That sums it up doesn't it?

 

[andysays]

But the overriding point here is that the Supreme Court is under a duty to seek a preliminary reference to the CJEU on a matter of EU law, which to my mind a50 revocability clearly is given that it concerns the interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.

However your point about political will is also a good one.

There is a curious tension there between this drive toward creating certainty in the application of EU law within a supra-national jurisdiction (which goes to a key Brexiteer argument around sovereignty) and the fact of the matter that the only thing that keeps the whole show on the road is intergovernmental political will as developed through international treaties.

But only if it's a point which is relevant to the specific case in front of it.

I haven't been following the past couple of days' events, so I'm not fully up to speed yet, but from the original case in the High Court, neither party was making the question of revocability an issue (maybe things have changed in the past couple of days).

The question may need to be resolved at some point, and if so the CJEU will be the place the resolution will have to happen, but I'm not sure there's any necessity to refer it on for the purpose of the current case. Indeed part of the government's strategy in all this may be deliberately to avoid having it go to the CJEU at this stage and for the revocability question to remain unanswered for now.

 

[brogdale]

I have got involved in rows with a fair few kippers on line elsewhere they insist that Brexit is hard Brexit, and that is the Brexit they voted for and they get the right hump when I say that they voted to Brexit but the government will decide what sort of Brexit they will get and there is fuck all they can do about that. That sums it up doesn't it?

Pretty much, except that the Government will 'decide' upon whatever course financial capital permits.

 

[brogdale]

But only if it's a point which is relevant to the specific case in front of it.

I haven't been following the past couple of days' events, so I'm not fully up to speed yet, but from the original case in the High Court, neither party was making the question of revocability an issue (maybe things have changed in the past couple of days).

The question may need to be resolved at some point, and if so the CJEU will be the place the resolution will have to happen, but I'm not sure there's any necessity to refer it on for the purpose of the current case. Indeed part of the government's strategy in all this may be deliberately to avoid having it go to the CJEU at this stage and for the revocability question to remain unanswered for now.

What's happening in Commons tomorrow is probably more important atm.