hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 200 of 315 FirstFirst ... 100150190197198199200201202203210250300 ... LastLast
Results 3,981 to 4,000 of 6300

Thread: (UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

  1. #3981

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,982
    I dont know, i find this part quite hard to swallow:

    Third, alongside the joint instrument on the withdrawal agreement, the United Kingdom government will make a unilateral declaration that, if the backstop comes into use and discussions on our future relationship break down so that there is no prospect of subsequent agreement, it is the position of the United Kingdom that there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately disapply the backstop.
    That essentially means that the UK can at any time torpedo negotiations, say "lul we knew from the start that NI hard border was unavoidable" and crash out. That is maybe rasonable from a sovereignty standpoint, but i have no confidence in the good faith of UK politicians.

    So, if this goes through, i would fully expect the transition period to end in the backstop, and the UK immediatly pulling out.

    I hear you hoping that the entire thing could still be scrapped, but my feeling is that this is sufficient to get it creaking through parliament.

  2. #3982
    Meester's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 25, 2011
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post

    I'd say: you can't, and very very easy. Meaning these 'legal changes' and guarantees are pointless and useless.
    Well until you have read the agreement you cannot say.

  3. #3983
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    19,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilalaunebör View Post
    I dont know, i find this part quite hard to swallow:

    Third, alongside the joint instrument on the withdrawal agreement, the United Kingdom government will make a unilateral declaration that, if the backstop comes into use and discussions on our future relationship break down so that there is no prospect of subsequent agreement, it is the position of the United Kingdom that there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately disapply the backstop.
    That essentially means that the UK can at any time torpedo negotiations, say "lul we knew from the start that NI hard border was unavoidable" and crash out. That is maybe rasonable from a sovereignty standpoint, but i have no confidence in the good faith of UK politicians.

    So, if this goes through, i would fully expect the transition period to end in the backstop, and the UK immediatly pulling out.

    I hear you hoping that the entire thing could still be scrapped, but my feeling is that this is sufficient to get it creaking through parliament.
    But then it would just revert to a hard border wouldn't it? I mean the whole point of the backstop was to prevent a hard border in Ireland, if you were just going to pull out on day 1 why bother even trying to pretend?
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

  4. #3984
    DerWish's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Budapest
    Posts
    1,537
    The good old tradition to kick the can down the road.
    This will give MPs the option to say, 1) it's not no-deal 2) we can win an election and make a better deal 3) we can choose no-deal any day if EU threatens our money laundering services 4) we can get a new referendum during the transition period.


    There was a great gif / video showing stereotypes about the members relationship with the EU, I cannot find it...
    UK was shown as leaving / stepping out of the door, than coming back and shouting again and again.

  5. #3985
    SteeleResolve's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    AKA Pubbie McLemming
    Posts
    3,415
    Quote Originally Posted by DerWish View Post
    UK was shown as leaving / stepping out of the door, than coming back and shouting again and again.
    It frustrates me how the UK is seen. Stupid fucking brexit 52%

  6. #3986

    Join Date
    May 25, 2011
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilalaunebör View Post
    I dont know, i find this part quite hard to swallow:

    Third, alongside the joint instrument on the withdrawal agreement, the United Kingdom government will make a unilateral declaration that, if the backstop comes into use and discussions on our future relationship break down so that there is no prospect of subsequent agreement, it is the position of the United Kingdom that there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately disapply the backstop.
    That essentially means that the UK can at any time torpedo negotiations, say "lul we knew from the start that NI hard border was unavoidable" and crash out. That is maybe rasonable from a sovereignty standpoint, but i have no confidence in the good faith of UK politicians.

    So, if this goes through, i would fully expect the transition period to end in the backstop, and the UK immediatly pulling out.

    I hear you hoping that the entire thing could still be scrapped, but my feeling is that this is sufficient to get it creaking through parliament.
    This is the weakest element of the whole thing - it means nothing.

    It isn't a unilateral power that the UK and EU have agreed to give the UK. It is a unilateral declaration. The UK and EU have a legally binding agreement. That legally binding agreement isn't changed by the UK unilaterally declaring something. Pretty much anyone can make unilateral declarations at any point.

    Here's mine:

    "I declare that FHC thinks that duckduck is charming and intelligent."
    Last edited by duckduck; March 12 2019 at 09:16:18 AM. Reason: Couldn't spell my own name

  7. #3987
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilalaunebör View Post
    I dont know, i find this part quite hard to swallow:

    Third, alongside the joint instrument on the withdrawal agreement, the United Kingdom government will make a unilateral declaration that, if the backstop comes into use and discussions on our future relationship break down so that there is no prospect of subsequent agreement, it is the position of the United Kingdom that there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately disapply the backstop.
    That essentially means that the UK can at any time torpedo negotiations, say "lul we knew from the start that NI hard border was unavoidable" and crash out. That is maybe rasonable from a sovereignty standpoint, but i have no confidence in the good faith of UK politicians.

    So, if this goes through, i would fully expect the transition period to end in the backstop, and the UK immediatly pulling out.

    I hear you hoping that the entire thing could still be scrapped, but my feeling is that this is sufficient to get it creaking through parliament.
    You need not worry much. This is a unilateral declaration by the UK. Not a joined declaration of the UK and the EU. May will claim it has legal standing, because the EU doesn't object to the UK making the unilateral statement, but that's very very flimsy indeed. If that weren't enough, what does this really say? It's just a position statement.

    Well, it is my position that my employer should pay me double my annual salary forthwith and without delay. I make that position statement unilaterally, BTW. Is that position statement legally binding as well. On my employer? No, ofcourse not. It is just my opinion.

    Just like this is May's/the UK's opinion on the backstop. One that the EU doesn't agree with, or must care about, really. But if May thinks it can get her deal passed, then Juncker will let it slide, and try not to roll his eyes too much.

    On top of that it is one that requires absolutely nothing from the EU but comes with a very high barrier to even apply (backstop in use, discussions break down, no prospect of agreement). Something that will be very easy for the EU to avoid, or that will immediately lead to claims of foul play from the EU if the UK pushes the button to soon.

    Moreover, it is one that only says that there's nothing to prevent the instigation of unspecified measures that would ultimately disapply the backstop. I mean, seriously, how many more weasel words can you squeeze into this?

    Maybe, if the stars align, we'll not say it is impossible that we maybe do something or other.

    To borrow a phrase: let's be clear, May wasted 2 months of everyone's time getting next to nothing more from the EU from what she already had in the letter exchange. It's pathetic in fact.

    And on top of that, Junckers made it abundantly clear that it is now or never. There's not going to be a third negotiation. This is it.

    And it is shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  8. #3988

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,000
    Sounds like Cox has fucked it.

  9. #3989
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,422
    The DUP aren't going to go along with this and most of the ERG will say no too.

    gg no re
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  10. #3990
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,636
    The three new documents (The first two are the ones that were agreed at the end of last year - the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration):

    (3) the legally binding joint instrument titled ‘Instrument relating to the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’, which reduces the risk the UK could be deliberately held in the Northern Ireland backstop indefinitely and commits the UK and the EU to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020;
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...instrument.pdf

    (4) the unilateral declaration by the UK titled ‘Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the Northern Ireland Protocol’, setting out the sovereign action the UK would take to provide assurance that the backstop would only be applied temporarily;
    https://assets.publishing.service.go...eclaration.pdf

    (5) the supplement to the framework for the future relationship titled ‘Joint Statement supplementing the Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, setting out commitments by the UK and the EU to expedite the negotiation and bringing into force of their future relationship.
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...statement_.pdf

    In addition, the EU released two other documents last night - a statement to the European commission explaining what had been agreed (pdf) and a letter from Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European commission, to Donald Tusk, president of the European council (pdf) explaining the agreement and - crucially - saying that if the UK does not take part in the European elections, it must be out of the EU by 23 May.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  11. #3991
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,636
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Sounds like Cox has fucked it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Laura Kuenssberg
    Cabinet source sounding pessimistic about tone of legal advice - ‘probably won’t be enough to get it over the line’
    Sound like Cox is giving a proper legal advice. Hoping his baritone will carry the day. It has never had thus far.

    To be fair on Cox, if that's allowed, he had nothing to work with ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  12. #3992
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    The DUP aren't going to go along with this and most of the ERG will say no too.

    gg no re
    I think the 'star chamber' will rip this to shreds, yes ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  13. #3993
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,422
    More like the chocolate starfish chamber
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  14. #3994
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,636
    Final sentence from the 'statement':
    ... and under the proviso that the UK will uphold its obligations under the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions and under all circumstances and to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
    Doesn't this mean applying the backstop in all but name?

    May's government still denying reality then ...
    Last edited by Bartholomeus Crane; March 12 2019 at 10:07:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  15. #3995
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,636
    People's vote legal opinion on the 'changes': here.

    From Guardian:
    It has been drafted by Lord Anderson QC, Jason Coppel QC and Sean Aughey. People’s Vote say their views should carry more weight that Geoffrey Cox’s, because it says all three are experts in EU and international law, unlike Cox who specialised in commercial law before he joined the government.
    :burn:

    Summary:
    In our opinion these measures:

    a. do not allow the UK to terminate the backstop in the event that negotiations over its future relationship with the EU cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and

    b. do not provide the UK with a right to terminate the backstop at a time of its choosing, or indeed at any time, without the agreement of the EU.

    The furthest they go is to reiterate the possibility that the backstop might be suspended in extreme circumstances of bad faith on the part of the EU which are highly unlikely to be demonstrated. This was already apparent from the withdrawal agreement, and had been acknowledged in the attorney general’s previous legal advice.

    Looking at the measures individually:

    a. The joint EU-UK instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement reduces the risk that the UK could be deliberately, and in bad faith, held in the backstop indefinitely. That was only ever a very limited risk. The far greater risk of being held in the backstop indefinitely as a result of the failure of good faith negotiations remains unmitigated.

    b. The UK’s unilateral declaration goes beyond the joint instrument only in suggesting that the UK might seek to disapply the backstop as a whole if negotiations had failed because of bad faith on the part of the EU. It does not suggest that there are any circumstances other than proven bad faith in which the backstop might be disapplied. Whether or not the UK’s understanding of the withdrawal agreement is correct will be a matter for the Court of Justice of the EU, which is likely to be sceptical not least because the UK’s declaration goes beyond the terms of the joint instrument.

    c. The joint EU-UK statement supplementing the political declaration has no effect whatsoever on the withdrawal agreement but merely explains certain of the parties’ aspirations for the future negotiations and the future relationship.

    Taken as a whole, these measures do not come close to meeting the [European Research Group’s] test of clearly worded, “treaty level” provisions which unambiguously override the stipulation of the withdrawal agreement that the backstop shall remain unless and until the UK and the EU agree otherwise.

    It is crystal clear that the measures do not alter the fundamental legal effect of the backstop, as previously and correctly explained by the attorney general. The backstop will endure indefinitely, unless and until superseded by another agreement, save in the extreme and unlikely event that in future negotiations the EU acts in bad faith in rejecting the UK’s demands.
    Bolded for convenience ...
    Last edited by Bartholomeus Crane; March 12 2019 at 10:17:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  16. #3996
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    lel

  17. #3997
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,422
    Thank fuck we didn't end up with the coalition of chaos.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  18. #3998
    SteeleResolve's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    AKA Pubbie McLemming
    Posts
    3,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    People's vote legal opinion on the 'changes': here.

    From Guardian:
    It has been drafted by Lord Anderson QC, Jason Coppel QC and Sean Aughey. People’s Vote say their views should carry more weight that Geoffrey Cox’s, because it says all three are experts in EU and international law, unlike Cox who specialised in commercial law before he joined the government.
    :burn:

    Summary:
    In our opinion these measures:

    a. do not allow the UK to terminate the backstop in the event that negotiations over its future relationship with the EU cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and

    b. do not provide the UK with a right to terminate the backstop at a time of its choosing, or indeed at any time, without the agreement of the EU.

    The furthest they go is to reiterate the possibility that the backstop might be suspended in extreme circumstances of bad faith on the part of the EU which are highly unlikely to be demonstrated. This was already apparent from the withdrawal agreement, and had been acknowledged in the attorney general’s previous legal advice.

    Looking at the measures individually:

    a. The joint EU-UK instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement reduces the risk that the UK could be deliberately, and in bad faith, held in the backstop indefinitely. That was only ever a very limited risk. The far greater risk of being held in the backstop indefinitely as a result of the failure of good faith negotiations remains unmitigated.

    b. The UK’s unilateral declaration goes beyond the joint instrument only in suggesting that the UK might seek to disapply the backstop as a whole if negotiations had failed because of bad faith on the part of the EU. It does not suggest that there are any circumstances other than proven bad faith in which the backstop might be disapplied. Whether or not the UK’s understanding of the withdrawal agreement is correct will be a matter for the Court of Justice of the EU, which is likely to be sceptical not least because the UK’s declaration goes beyond the terms of the joint instrument.

    c. The joint EU-UK statement supplementing the political declaration has no effect whatsoever on the withdrawal agreement but merely explains certain of the parties’ aspirations for the future negotiations and the future relationship.

    Taken as a whole, these measures do not come close to meeting the [European Research Group’s] test of clearly worded, “treaty level” provisions which unambiguously override the stipulation of the withdrawal agreement that the backstop shall remain unless and until the UK and the EU agree otherwise.

    It is crystal clear that the measures do not alter the fundamental legal effect of the backstop, as previously and correctly explained by the attorney general. The backstop will endure indefinitely, unless and until superseded by another agreement, save in the extreme and unlikely event that in future negotiations the EU acts in bad faith in rejecting the UK’s demands.
    Bolded for convenience ...
    Can you do that for all your posting please? TIA

  19. #3999
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,636
    Principal conclusions People's Vote legal advice (for you convenience):
    In summary, therefore, our principal conclusions are that:
    1. The interpretative declaration does not materially change the legal effect of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol. There is no basis for any substantive change to the Attorney General's previous advice that the UK may not leave the backstop unilaterally, and that the backstop may accordingly endure indefinitely.
    2. The interpretative declaration is not a clearly worded, legally binding, "treaty-level" clause which unambiguously overrides the text of the Withdrawal Agreement and/or the Protocol.
    I mention this because there is now, apparently, a whole legal discussion going on about how legally binding the unilateral/interpretative declaration is under international law.

    It doesn't matter. In effect, it is a red herring, an obfuscation.

    Whatever the legal strength of the declaration: it doesn't materially change anything in the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol. At best it reiterates and repackages what is in there already.

    Even if the EU would agree to what is in the declaration, making it joint (which won't, and certainly won't be able to in time), it is basically pointless and useless, and nowhere near what the ERG (and the DUP) demanded.

    If either the ERG or the DUP use it as a figleaf now, they'll look like a bunch of morons/hypocrites.

    Then again ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  20. #4000

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,000
    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...awal-agreement


    However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.
    fucked it [emphasis mine]

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •