Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DUP flexing it's muscles...

Democratic Unionist party MPs, upon whose votes May relies for a Commons majority, have made it clear to government whips that they would not accept a “no deal” outcome because it would mean a return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/15/labour-says-it-will-join-conservatives-to-block-no-deal-brexit

.string.

I don't think it's that digital Hamish.

Of course there can be a deal, it may not cover all bases, a partial deal in other words. Settle the Irish border, as a separate self-standing item, for example.

At the moment the EU are blocking progress, blaming us for doing it. A bit of both viewpoints if course but the inflexibility of the EU negotiators is endemic in the EU set up and I think they will continue with the same formula for "negotiation" as at present, with each country setting its own red lines over wanting UK money for its own pet project.

I'm beginning to wonder if it is even worth trying to negotiate with the EU, given their ill-will towards us. Better, maybe, to negotiate a trade arrangement from outside.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/14/cross-party-group-no-deal-theresa-may-brexit-eu

This would appear to be a sensible compromise - what both the EU and Britain need more than anything else is to agree a deal which involves the least amount of economic harm as quickly as possible.

This amendment would prevent the extreme Brexit fundamentalists that want to damage Britain's economy from being able to do so - and force cool heads and compromise.

Interestingly there are now over 300 amendments tabled to the Brexit bill and it has been withdrawn from proceedings and postponed to a later date as the govt doesn't have the majority to defeat all the amendments.

Article 50 has already been triggered. A vote in the Commons can't stop the UK crashing out with no deal now. We're either heading for 'no deal' or a deal that the UK will have to suck up however politically unpalatable it is to Brexiteers.

Both the Tories and the Labour party are going to have to face this fact eventually. They can wax lyrical, fight, oppose and delay Westminster votes/amendments etc for the next 18 months as much as they like really. The UK is still out anyway unless Article 50 is revoked.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Article 50 has already been triggered. A vote in the Commons can't stop the UK crashing out with no deal now. We're either heading for 'no deal' or a deal that the UK will have to suck up however politically unpalatable it is to Brexiteers.

Both the Tories and the Labour party are going to have to face this fact eventually. They can wax lyrical, fight, oppose and delay Westminster votes/amendments etc for the next 18 months as much as they like really. The UK is still out anyway unless Article 50 is revoked.

Almost right.:)

Article 50 was triggered on March 29 2017, therefore the UK will exit the EU on March 29 2019.

However what Article 50 states is that;

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

It's therefore possible for the two year period to be extended.

Whether or not Article 50 can be revoked is something else together, since:

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was written with a deliberate lack of clarity - it does not say whether it can be revoked once it has been triggered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3929151200001

Some people say 'yes', some people say 'no'. The EU might or might not agree if the UK changes its mind. In the same way as it might or might not agree to delay Brexit.

.string.

I think it a mistake to think the UK can return to the EU with things as they were. The rebate, for example, is not a slam dunk by any means. Also relationships are not as they were.

I don't know if I would vote to return, given the chance; too much dirty water has flown and thrown.

The situation has gone far beyond logic.

cogito

antrobus wrote: »

Almost right.:)

Article 50 was triggered on March 29 2017, therefore the UK will exit the EU on March 29 2019.

However what Article 50 states is that;

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

It's therefore possible for the two year period to be extended.

Whether or not Article 50 can be revoked is something else together, since:

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was written with a deliberate lack of clarity - it does not say whether it can be revoked once it has been triggered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3929151200001

Some people say 'yes', some people say 'no'. The EU might or might not agree if the UK changes its mind. In the same way as it might or might not agree to delay Brexit.

Article 50 wasn't written with a deliberate lack of clarity. It was simply chucked into the Lisbon Treaty at the last minute when someone pointed out that there was no provision for a country to leave. The Hotel California situation.

No one could envisage anyone actually leaving so there was not much thought put into its wording which is why it's all a bit of a mess.

It would appear that the EU is in breach of the treaty by refusing to discuss future relations but then that's never bothered them before so why would it do so now. We made the mistake of assuming that we were negotiating with a benign organisation which would happily discuss future relations which may well be why we agreed to the sequencing demanded by the EU. We should have realised that we were in fact dealing with a bunch of sociopaths whose concerns are first of all themselves and their cushy lifestyles and secondly preservation of an increasingly rocky union that needs more and more money thrown at it.

Conrad

gfplux wrote: »

5) No flights between Britain and EU

Etc, etc

SPAIN, finally beginning to recover from years of economic pain where public servants often went without pay, huge unemployment and mass demonstrations took place outside homes scheduled for repossession


Spain, Greece and others you say will vote to ground the planes.
So no UK vacationers, restaurants standing empty, hotels with no guests, jet skis with no riders, food and drink rotting in warehouses, and no Brits buying houses.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

vivatifosi

But to get to Spain, you fly over France, which as a country has been playing far more hardball.

cogito

vivatifosi wrote: »

But to get to Spain, you fly over France, which as a country has been playing far more hardball.

Of course. What possible objection could Spain have to the French disrupting their tourist industry which had a mere 18,000,000 visitors from the UK last year?

Tromking

ilovehouses wrote: »

Parliament is sovereign so it's in the gift of parliament to request that article 50 be revoked. If that happened and the EU agreed to the request then it would be revoked.

Most things are possible if there's unanimity.

You ignore, as most Remainers do, the ramifications for our democracy if the referendum vote is ignored or watered down.
Not for nothing has our Parliament (so far) not sought to vote down the will of the people as expressed in June 2016.