Will Brexit happen?

Takedap

westernpromise wrote: »

What in Article 50 persuades you that a deal is intended to be possible? Do you at least concede in principle that the EU may deliberately write treaties so as to make them constructively impossible to withdraw from, further to its objective of ever closer union?

The word "deal" doesn't appear in the wording of Article 50.


However, it does say that when a member stare notifies the European Council of it's intention to leave, then "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."


How does that lead you to conclude that, in your own words, "the EU may deliberately write treaties so as to make them constructively impossible to withdraw from"?

Triple_Zero

The Scottish Appeals Court has just refused to grant an interim order blocking Boris Johnson from proroguing parliament.
This follows Gina Miller's failure in the English High Court.
It does immediately strike me that the only people winning from this are the lawyers with their undoubtedly huge fees.

MaxiRobriguez

Triple_Zero wrote: »

The Scottish Appeals Court has just refused to grant an interim order blocking Boris Johnson from proroguing parliament.
This follows Gina Miller's failure in the English High Court.
It does immediately strike me that the only people winning from this are the lawyers with their undoubtedly huge fees.

I believe there was genuine good intention to take the proroguing decision to court because it was a crass decision to illegitimately prevent parliament from discussing anti-no deal bills. Fundamentally it's an anti-democratic move, but it's not an illegal one, hence the courts decision.

Illegal no, ill thought out yes.

Gina Miller may be a remainer who is hampering Brexit efforts but her input is seeing parliament get more of a say, not less and we live in a parliamentary democracy. Parliament is sovereign and all that.

westernpromise

Takedap wrote: »

How does that lead you to conclude that, in your own words, "the EU may deliberately write treaties so as to make them constructively impossible to withdraw from"?

From the fact that this is what has happened in the case of Brexit. Two years is demonstrably an impossibly short time to conclude anything (and a much shorter time than the EU itself has ever needed to conclude any equivalent agreement with anyone else).

It's essentially an Alice in Wonderland clause. Jam yesterday and tomorrow but never today, meaning that although jam is available, it also is not.

Takedap

westernpromise wrote: »

From the fact that this is what has happened in the case of Brexit. Two years is demonstrably an impossibly short time to conclude anything (and a much shorter time than the EU itself has ever needed to conclude any equivalent agreement with anyone else).

It's essentially an Alice in Wonderland clause. Jam yesterday and tomorrow but never today, meaning that although jam is available, it also is not.

So, in short, the UK doesn't know what it wants & that must be the fault of the EU?


You do of course realise that the Withdrawal Agreement was never meant to "conclude" anything? It is simply a means of allowing us to move onto the next stage.


Theresa May's red lines were all about what she wouldn't accept & nothing about what she would. Boris hasn't even given us a clue apart from saying that the negotiations are gong well (which the EU refutes)


Do you really think that leaving without a deal will conclude anything? Unless you believe that we can trade solely on WTO terms forever, it is the start of the process, not the end.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

So what were we going to Remain in again? Ever closer union, or stasis?

I don't think anyone has claimed Remain was anything other than the status quo - we'd still be a reluctant member who takes advantage of membership whilst resisting any further integration.
No one (as far as I can tell) has claimed a Remain vote was a vote for integration. Just as no one claimed a Leave vote was for WTO (except, Ironically, David Cameron, when pointing out how bad an idea it was).

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

What in Article 50 persuades you that a deal is intended to be possible? Do you at least concede in principle that the EU may deliberately write treaties so as to make them constructively impossible to withdraw from, further to its objective of ever closer union?

What in A50 persuades you that a deal isn't meant to be possible?


The article is pretty clear - it gives us a 2 year (or longer with agreement) term to negotiate an exit.
It was certainly never written to handle negotiating with a member state that doesn't actually know what it wants, is crippled by in-fighting and has no majority to do anything.


The UK leaving has been hampered entirely by the UK not knowing what it actually wants to do. Naturally, this is being blamed on the EU for being intransigent for not letting us have it all.

GDJTAM

I voted remain, I knew what I was voting for but I also knew the disruption coming out of the EU would potentially cause. Repeatedly, May said that No deal doesn't mean it's a bad deal.

The people voted and leaving we must do. We have lost faith with politicians, they all have their own views on why we should stay, why we should leave with a deal (albeit each politician knows what deal they want but not collectively) and why we should leave with a no deal. A complete shambolic mess caused by the house and the world are watching our famous respectful democratic politics be ridiculed by our own politicians.

It doesn't matter what party you support, most of them are ignoring their constituents and feathering their own personal political feathers.

We should respect the referendum, leave the EU on the 31/10/19 and begin the process of standing on our own.

We can delay Brexit in October, then throw out more deals thereafter before requesting numerous more delays!

westernpromise

Takedap wrote: »

So, in short, the UK doesn't know what it wants & that must be the fault of the EU?


You do of course realise that the Withdrawal Agreement was never meant to "conclude" anything? It is simply a means of allowing us to move onto the next stage.


Theresa May's red lines were all about what she wouldn't accept & nothing about what she would. Boris hasn't even given us a clue apart from saying that the negotiations are gong well (which the EU refutes)


Do you really think that leaving without a deal will conclude anything? Unless you believe that we can trade solely on WTO terms forever, it is the start of the process, not the end.

It's not a matter of whether I think WTO is a good idea or not. It's about whether the departure process is framed to enable or to frustrate departure. It's clearly the latter, for exactly the same reasons as Sky contracts and gym memberships.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

It's about whether the departure process is framed to enable or to frustrate departure. It's clearly the latter, for exactly the same reasons as Sky contracts and gym memberships.

What makes you think it's designed to frustrate departure? It says they must negotiate with the leaving state, within a starting 2 year window. There's nothing else to it.


Gym memberships on the other hand usually require written notice and payment for a minimum term, and it's usually pretty easy to leave after jumping through their hoops (or cancel the payment and take the credit rating hit).