Rheresa May has said the formal withdrawal process for Britain leaving the European Union will be invoked by the end of March 2017.
Speaking at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham, the prime minister also confirmed plans for a "Great Repeal Bill" to overturn legislation that took Britain into the EU.
However Mrs May came under attack from Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon after she said there is "no opt out from Brexit" and we will "never allow divisive nationalists to undermine the precious union between the four nations of our United Kingdom".
Mrs May also said she will not accept any limits on Britain's ability to control immigration in negotiations to leave the EU.
Source
Well of course Nicola Sturgeon is going to have something to say about there being no opt-out. Nice Job Breaking it, Theresa- you've just handed the Scottish Independence groups all the ammunition it will need for a fresh campaign.
It's a good move on Theresa May's part if her goal is to not leave the EU (remember that she was in the Remain camp). By setting out a firm timeline she has essentially removed any leverage the UK would have in leaving, since the EU would have to do is wait them out. And by ending speculation as to when Article 50 will be triggered, IMO resistance to it will become much more organised. Expect more legal challenges and potentially a backbenchers' revolt. At the very least IMO it's likely that the PM will need a vote in parliament before Article 50 could be triggered, which should delay things for quite awhile.
IMO the PM is trying to have the best of both worlds - make it look as though she's serious about leaving, but scuttle things as much as possible so that in the end leaving simply isn't a viable option. We'll see how this plays out, but I would still be very surprised if the UK actually left. IMO the most you might see is some minor concessions like the ones David Cameron was aiming for (though I doubt the UK will even get that much now that the EU knows it can just wait them out).
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Possible, though - there never was a "soft" Brexit option, other than in the minds of some people on the British islands. The options the EU was willing to agree to were stated pretty clear from the outset, either in or out.
Still people in Britain are clinging to the idea that they could leave and basically tell the EU how things will be in the future, but with no idea how to make this happen other than waiting the EU out, hoping it will cave in. This timeline pretty much forces all hands, which I approve of, as this uncertanity is pretty bad.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
The thing is we all know that the Leave Group never actually thought that they were going to win. Everyone (especially Cameron) assumed that the Remain Group would win in the end. So now the Conservatives they are stuck in a position they did not expect to be in. And unlike the rest of Europe throwing away referendum results is not easy to do politically speaking, even though referendums are technically non-binding. So the trick is to figure out a way around it while still making it look like the government is trying to fulfill the referendum results.
Incidentally, IIRC Article 50 does not prevent a state from joining the EEA. Should Article 50 actually be invoked that's the most likely scenario.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Tribble wrote:It's a good move on Theresa May's part if her goal is to not leave the EU (remember that she was in the Remain camp). By setting out a firm timeline she has essentially removed any leverage the UK would have in leaving, since the EU would have to do is wait them out. And by ending speculation as to when Article 50 will be triggered, IMO resistance to it will become much more organised. Expect more legal challenges and potentially a backbenchers' revolt. At the very least IMO it's likely that the PM will need a vote in parliament before Article 50 could be triggered, which should delay things for quite awhile.
Yeah. No. That's ridiculously wishful thinking. You think May's going to blow her political career in a massive fit of attempted reverse psychology on the british people?
She's said we're leaving. She's said its a governmental privileged not a parliamentary one.
They may be legal challengers and votes but May is not aiming to have to a massive U Turn. She's not out to sacrifice her for the greater good.
The thing is we all know that the Leave Group never actually thought that they were going to win. Everyone (especially Cameron) assumed that the Remain Group would win in the end. So now the Conservatives they are stuck in a position they did not expect to be in. And unlike the rest of Europe throwing away referendum results is not easy to do politically speaking, even though referendums are technically non-binding. So the trick is to figure out a way around it while still making it look like the government is trying to fulfill the referendum results.
We know one guy, maybe, joined up to lose and be seen as heir apparent. Everyone in the camp was there to win and wanted to win it.
Tribble wrote:Incidentally, IIRC Article 50 does not prevent a state from joining the EEA. Should Article 50 actually be invoked that's the most likely scenario.
No. But May also said a lot of other things recently; namely, repealing EU law (not honouring the ECJ) and enforcing "immigration controls".
This is clearly a violation of free movement of people and common legal framework (preprequisites for staying in or enterting the EEA), so out the UK flies like cork from a bottle.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Yeah. No. That's ridiculously wishful thinking. You think May's going to blow her political career in a massive fit of attempted reverse psychology on the british people?
She's said we're leaving. She's said its a governmental privileged not a parliamentary one.
They may be legal challengers and votes but May is not aiming to have to a massive U Turn. She's not out to sacrifice her for the greater good.
She's said the UK is leaving, but until she (or parliament) actually does so her words mean nothing. Remember when David Cameron stated that he would trigger Article 50 if the majority voted to leave, and that he would remain PM? From now to March is a long time in politics, and a lot can happen between now and then. If it becomes politically expedient for her to delay things or head for a soft Brexit. she will do so without hesitation. It wouldn't be the first time that a politician changes course after making promises and firm deadlines. I'm of the opinion that this is all for show, but we'll see.
No. But May also said a lot of other things recently; namely, repealing EU law (not honouring the ECJ) and enforcing "immigration controls".
This is clearly a violation of free movement of people and common legal framework (preprequisites for staying in or enterting the EEA), so out the UK flies like cork from a bottle.
Yes, she's saying a lot of things, but at the end of the day does that really matter? March is a long way away politically and economically speaking, especially as she has now tabled a firm date. Until Article 50 is actually invoked and it's clear that the UK will not be negotiating for EEA membership forgive me for being skeptical. Atm I'm just making guesses, and at the end of the day I suspect that the UK will either stay in the EU or leave the EU but remain in the EEA (with perhaps some minor concessions on the EU's part). IMO there is just too much money involved for the poltical / economic elites to allow a hard Brexit to happen, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
EDIT: Also, IIRC the ECJ does not have direct jurisdiction over EEA members as that's the EFTA Court's role. So she could make the claim that she's leaving the ECJ by joining the EEA even if practically speaking that doesn't mean much.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Yes, things change in politics. So why do you think May is so die-hard Remain to be playing the long game to avoid leaving the EU? Why do you think she's not simply doing what she appears to be; going with the wind and becoming a brexiter?
Yes, Cameron made promises he didn't keep. Guess what? He's not longer PM for exactly that reason. He either had to keep his promises or his position became politically untenable.
If there's some massive shift that some makes staying in become viable before now March, great and maybe she'll take it. What I'm mostly arguing against is the idea that this must be May's plan right now and she's playing some massive batman gambit on the country.
For someone trying to remain, she's already slapped down some of the best ways to do it.
For all her promises of Brexit, and a hard Brexit at that, the question nevertheless remains (pun not intended). If she really has committed to Brexit, why the delay? Why another six months?
It can't be that she's still holding out for some kind of bespoke deal, or at least I would be very surprised if it was. The EU has made its position very clear, that there will be no negotiations of any kind until Article 50 is triggered; in other words, put up or shut up. On top of that, it must also be clear that the EU will offer no substantive concessions on anything meaningful, especially not free movement of people. It will not risk its own survival - and that is what's at stake in the extreme - just to pander to Britain. The only soft Brexit that was ever going to happen was the Norway option (leave EU but stay in Common Market), but that would mean conceding to free movement of people.
In my mind, this leaves only two possibilities. One is that, as Tribble suggests, she is trying to engineer a Brexit breakdown while not taking the rap for it. This would be incredibly difficult, if only because as Prime Minister she at least theoretically holds the power to give the Brexiteers everything they want right now, and will be held responsible for any failure.
There are only two realistic possibilities that I can percieve for the moment. One is to lose a Parliamentary vote, which would be technically not her fault; though try telling the Brexiteers that, once their heart's desire has been snatched away. The other problem is that it would badly damage her image as PM, and lead to questions over her ability to lead.
The alternative, and probably the best option, would be to lose the legal argument. There is already at least one legal challenge underway (by the government of Northern Ireland of all places), and as Tribble has said they will become even more determined and desperate now that the clock is ticking. If May were to lose such a challenge, whether to Brexit or her right as PM to push it through, she would then be in a position to back off, citing the Rule of Law. For the Brexiteers to condemn her would be to demand that she break the law for them.
The other of the two possibilities ties in to what I have already hinted; that she fears a Tory civil war. The Tories currently have 329 seats, and according to some press sources from before the Referendum these split into something like 128 pro-EU MPs vs 110 anti-EU MPs, with the rest undeclared. If this figures remain accurate, then both factions have the power to make May's life miserable, if only by repeatedly voting against her in Parliament until she can't get anything done (an old trick).
But each faction also has a nuclear option of its own. The Brexiteers' option is a party leadership contest, as the party members are reputedly pro-Brexit. The pro-EU option is a Vote of No Confidence, in which they would enjoy the support of the other parties IF it looks like May is serious about Brexit. Their shared nuclear option is defection, which I only mention because it would need only 17 or more defections - for whatever reason - to rob the Tory Party of its majority.
For Theresa May, this can only be called an invidious situation. Her career may be doomed either way, along with the Tory Party itself. A lot of this, I think, will come down to the electoral calculus; aka whatever puts her in the strongest position once the balloon goes up. This depends as much as anything else on what happens to the Labour Party, as Corbyn faces much the same problem. Sooner or later he's going to have to pick a side, and while he may prefer to fudge the issue to avoid a nigh-inevitable split (much as May seems to be doing), doing so will only end up alienating both factions. If he goes pro-EU, he'll lose the Labour heartland. If he goes anti-EU, he'll lose the Centre-leaning tendency; and if that doesn't have his enemies among the MPs defecting en-masse, nothing will.
If a Labour split takes place, or if Corbyn goes anti-EU and somehow avoids a split, then May's best position will be pro-EU. While she risks losing her right-wing support, she will face at most one serious contender for the Centre vote, while the anti-EU vote will be split between UKIP, Corbyn's Labour, and possibly an ex-Tory faction.
One positive outcome of all these splits may be a growing call for Proportional Representation.
Juubi Karakuchi wrote:For all her promises of Brexit, and a hard Brexit at that, the question nevertheless remains (pun not intended). If she really has committed to Brexit, why the delay? Why another six months?
Maybe to give time for the courts to reach a decision on any legal challenges. I don't think anyone wants the mess that will result from Article 50 being triggered followed a few months/years later by a court ruling that the government had no right to trigger it.
By setting a deadline, that forces the courts to do one of the following:
- Rule in favour of Brexit. So it goes ahead as planned.
- Rule against it. Then she backs down, claiming that she did all she could to follow the referendum.
- Issue an injunction to give the court more time to decide. Again, it's not her fault that Brexit is delayed, but there is not the possibility of the following election to show that the people have changed their mind, without holding the election early. An election where she can say that, while she didn't like Brexit, she did everything she could to follow the will of the people. But, if reelected, she will take it as proof that the people have changed their mind.
Then there is the whole problem that FPP makes it difficult to tell if a candidate was voted in for their views or the views of their party.
Unless the UK courts are significantly swifter than US courts, I don't expect them to be able to decide by March. Which means an injunction to prevent the UK doing anything that can't be reversed is the most likely result.
bilateralrope wrote:
Unless the UK courts are significantly swifter than US courts, I don't expect them to be able to decide by March. Which means an injunction to prevent the UK doing anything that can't be reversed is the most likely result.
I strongly suspect that you're right. An embarrassing oversight on my part .
Now that you mention it, that does raise one other possibility for May to fall back on. The current legal challenge the press has noticed is by the Northern Irish goverment. For an actual government (admittedly a subsidiary one) to make such a move is significant. Underlying it, I suspect, is the threat of secession from the UK (most likely by referendum) if they don't get the result they want. Northern Ireland is actually in a somewhat stronger position to do this than Scotland; not only because of a clear vote to Remain, but because it would face even less resistance in Europe and the wider world.
Putting this very quickly back in perspective, the process would consist of threats to secede, followed by a request for a referendum, followed by unilateral secession only if May refuses to cooperate (and, it has to be said, maybe not even then). But even the first stage would embolden the SNP, and vice versa. While Scots may have become leery of independence due to oil prices not being what they might be, getting dragged out of the Common Market could be just as bad or worse.
My point? If the possibility of Scotland or Northern Ireland leaving the UK becomes somewhat serious, May could use this to put the Brexiteers on the spot. The question would be, do you want Brexit so badly that you are willing to let our beloved union be torn apart? The party's full name is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and as the name implies keeping the union together is one of its basic imperatives. A credible threat to the union could provide May with a pretext to drop Brexit; albeit not as good as losing the legal battle.
Juubi Karakuchi wrote:My point? If the possibility of Scotland or Northern Ireland leaving the UK becomes somewhat serious, May could use this to put the Brexiteers on the spot. The question would be, do you want Brexit so badly that you are willing to let our beloved union be torn apart? The party's full name is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and as the name implies keeping the union together is one of its basic imperatives. A credible threat to the union could provide May with a pretext to drop Brexit; albeit not as good as losing the legal battle.
There are two problems with that. One, it's entirely possible that the hardline Brexiters might say yes: Anyone who can read a map could see that Northern Ireland was going to get shafted if we didn't at least stay in the single market, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone on the Leave side.
Two, we're not just moving into uncharted constitutional waters but chumming them when it comes to what happens if a clear majority of Scots express a wish for independence but Westminster refuses to let them go.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
The question would be, do you want Brexit so badly that you are willing to let our beloved union be torn apart?
This is the one question Brexiteers are ignoring/in denial about. God forbid they be forced to take responsibility for the clusterfuck that follows them winning the referendum...
Juubi Karakuchi wrote:My point? If the possibility of Scotland or Northern Ireland leaving the UK becomes somewhat serious, May could use this to put the Brexiteers on the spot. The question would be, do you want Brexit so badly that you are willing to let our beloved union be torn apart? The party's full name is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and as the name implies keeping the union together is one of its basic imperatives. A credible threat to the union could provide May with a pretext to drop Brexit; albeit not as good as losing the legal battle.
There are two problems with that. One, it's entirely possible that the hardline Brexiters might say yes: Anyone who can read a map could see that Northern Ireland was going to get shafted if we didn't at least stay in the single market, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone on the Leave side.
Two, we're not just moving into uncharted constitutional waters but chumming them when it comes to what happens if a clear majority of Scots express a wish for independence but Westminster refuses to let them go.
A fair point, though I fear I did not make myself as clear as I should have done.
As you and others here have implied, the Brexiteers cannot be talked out of Brexit; at least not Brexit as a concept. The most May can hope to achieve is to talk some them out of this Brexit, though even that seems a stretch.
What I suppose I'm talking about is how May presents all of this to the rest of the government, not to mention the country. As bilateralrope pointed out, May needs to be able to stand before both of them and say that she honestly did her best, but that it can't be done; at least not without intolerable consequences. The trouble is, for the Brexiteers there are no intolerable consequences, or they're not going to happen.
As I see it, May needs to isolate the Brexiteers; make them look like the pack of deluded narcissists and Eric Cartmans they really are. The first target is the eighty or so undeclared MPs (unless they've already chosen sides), with whose support she would have a clear majority of Tory MPs. The problem of the members still remains, but she would be in as strong a position as possible to ride out a leadership battle. The pro-EU majority in the other parties will give her the upper hand in the Commons, at least.
The real threat to her, as far as I can see, is that the Brexit MPs and the party membership try to force her out. I really don't know whether she would be able to remain as PM if they succeeded, even if the pro-EU MPs defected in her support. As Zaune said, these are uncharted waters.
Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.
Theresa May says the Brexit referendum and ministerial powers mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners argue this is unconstitutional.
The government is expected to appeal.
The prime minister has said she will activate Article 50, formally notifying the EU of the UK's intention to leave, by the end of next March. This follows the UK's decision to back Brexit in June's referendum by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%.
The EU's other 27 members have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said, if the court's decision is not overturned, there could be "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles ahead.
The government is expected to appeal against the decision, with a further hearing to be held in the Supreme Court.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
Yeah!
Fuck the will of the people, the masses are not fit to rule themselves!
Cute straw man, asshole.
I actually believe in direct democracy by referendum. And were this done legally, I would probably, however grudgingly, accept the results.
However, I am also a believer in the rule of law, and Britain is first and foremost a representative democracy. If the Brexit vote was done improperly, if Parliamentary approval is required, then that is what should happen. Weather the system should be subsequently changed to allow such decisions to be made by referendum alone is another question.
And I am happy to see the the agenda of far Right nationalist xenophobes blocked, yes.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
Yeah!
Fuck the will of the people, the masses are not fit to rule themselves!
Cute straw man, asshole.
I actually believe in direct democracy by referendum. And were this done legally, I would probably, however grudgingly, accept the results.
However, I am also a believer in the rule of law, and Britain is first and foremost a representative democracy. If the Brexit vote was done improperly, if Parliamentary approval is required, then that is what should happen. Weather the system should be subsequently changed to allow such decisions to be made by referendum alone is another question.
And I am happy to see the the agenda of far Right nationalist xenophobes blocked, yes.
17 million out of around 65 million? Around a quarter of the population, and a third of the voters? Is that the masses? Or is it just a question the British political system would rather not be asked openly?
As things stand, I suspect this comes down to electoral calculus. As I've said before, May is trapped between a pro-Remain Parliament on the one hand and a pro-Brexit Tory party on the other, either of which can end her premiership. But as the UK papers have been pointing out rather vociferously, MPs would also be taking serious risks if they vote against Brexit now. For a Remain MP in a Brexit constituency, this is an invidious situation. On the one hand, Labour MPs in particular risk losing voters and seats to UKIP; on the other hand, there's a better than average chance that they would lose those seats anyway. Also, if they can avoid an early general election, they might be able to make up those lost votes and seats elsewhere.
An amusing irony occurs to me. If Parliament does vote Brexit down, and May responds by putting up her hands and saying 'sorry people, I did my best', underlying that would be 'and you idiots had better do all you can to keep me in power, because that's the only way you're going to avoid getting a general election full in the face.'
His Divine Shadow wrote:Brexit isn't gonna get blocked by this.
Is the majority of Parliament pro-Brexit?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
Um... you just posted two wildly contradictory things. Yes, they majority are pro-Brexit, and 75% are pro-Remain.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
.
