Disaster Brexit: "Technical terms" agreed - Chequers minus, as feared, or Brexit in name only.

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
The "deal" is basically Remain by the back door so if they can appeal to May's proclivity for can-kicking they think they can force a choice between staying and going but not really.
I get that, but this seems like the most exceptional way of pushing that agenda.

Then again I may be giving Westminster too much credit to think that they can put two and two together and realise that they don't need more time if they have can agree on the deal that the EU has already signed off on.
 

CWCissey

Charming Man
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Twatter's been smug because of some fucking petition with 1 million signatures calling for Revoking Article 50.

Come on Macron. Do something right for once and De Gaulle it.
 

Ginger Piglet

Fictional Manhunt Survivor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Twatter's been smug because of some fucking petition with 1 million signatures calling for Revoking Article 50.

Come on Macron. Do something right for once and De Gaulle it.
If Guido is to be believed, many of these signatures aren't exactly genuine. Vote early, vote often, isn't that the EU way?
 
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Germany, China, and Japan are terrible analogies. While Germany and Japan were not Unified as modern states till the 19th century, they were coherent nations, with the consistent cultures and national identities even prior to unification. It is nowhere near the same as trying to unify multiple nation-states into one coherent country.

To make this point clearer, though there were multiple German states prior to the German Empire's creation, the people who lived there were still culturally German, and still considered themselves German, and the concept of a nation and region of Germany and of a German people predated national unification. Germany was a unification of the German people into a nation-state in the Westphalian sense, not a union of multiple nations and peoples into a state that literally exist to be the antithesis to that point.

Japan was a feudal state prior to the rise of the Tokugawa Shogunate which essentially united Japan, but the Japanese daimyo, independent though they were, swore allegiance to the the Emperor, and the Japanese people had a common cultural and ethnic heritage going back to prehistory. In other words, the nation of Japan existed long before Japan evolved into a modernized nation-state by the coming of the Meiji Restoration.

An China was long unified prior to 1950. China is one of the most ancient nations on Earth, with the Chinese people unified by various dynasties for over 1000 years, and the Han Chinese have long, rich, cultural history. 1949 was only when the current People's Republic of China which rules the mainland had been proclaimed. But the PRC did not create China whole cloth out of nothing. A Han Chinese nation has existed in that region for practically all of recorded history. Though other ethnicities may live in China, it is still a Han Chinese Nation State.

Your Analogy is comparing three separate nation-states that unified their already existing peoples to a supranational union, which is attempting to merge multiple nation-states into a single blob. Its not even kind of comparable.

Edit: Also, as has been pointed out, those "unifications" were anything but smooth. The Tokugawa clan had to wipeout their rivals to form the Shogunate, and the Tokugawa Shogunate had to be destroyed in the Boshin War to form the Empire of Japan as it became. Prussia had to win the Second Schleswig War, the Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War to Unify Germany, and he PRC had to defeat the Republic of China in the Chinese Civil War to unify China under their aegis, a war that is still technically on going. And the PRC subsequently murdered over 50 million of its own citizens, mostly by sheer incompetence. Japan and Germany ended up in World War II largely due to the lingering effects of each of their respective unification, and we know how that turned out. Even America had a Civil War that was what allowed it to really coalesce as a nation. Europe isn't going to get the better results trying to bureaucratically force a unification.
India would be my go-to example to be honest. Not perfect but they're getting better and definitely better off than they would be scattered and divided with nations around the world who'd exploit that weakness as has actually happened before. Granted this largely came as a result of foreign conquests creating politically contiguous empires that lasted centuries in the first place but then that is often the case. Certainly the idea of a trans-europan bloc is nothing new. (The Romans/The Carolingians/The Hapsburgs/Napoleon)
 

Крыса

там хорошо, где меня нет
kiwifarms.net
EU might grant delay if Deal passed

Wut?

If they could get MPs to back the deal they wouldn't need the delay.
From what I understand they'd need the delay to legally implement the deal it's not something that can be done overnight

I've read a rather interesting if very technical (can't say I fully understand it...) take on the lawfulness of the default "no deal" brexit that would happen on the 29th. From what I make of it the Parliament would need to approve a no deal brexit, which it voted against last week, otherwise the withdrawal would be unconstitutional. No idea what would happen if they don't, the author says A50 would lapse if they go down that road but that wouldn't be without consequences for the government I'm guessing.
 
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
From what I understand they'd need the delay to legally implement the deal it's not something that can be done overnight

I've read a rather interesting if very technical (can't say I fully understand it...) take on the lawfulness of the default "no deal" brexit that would happen on the 29th. From what I make of it the Parliament would need to approve a no deal brexit, which it voted against last week, otherwise the withdrawal would be unconstitutional. No idea what would happen if they don't, the author says A50 would lapse if they go down that road but that wouldn't be without consequences for the government I'm guessing.
Do you think its possible that things eventually reach the point where someone outside of parliament steps in?
 

Крыса

там хорошо, где меня нет
kiwifarms.net
Do you think its possible that things eventually reach the point where someone outside of parliament steps in?
What do you mean ? I'm not very familiar with the UK political system, I thought the PM could dissolve the Parliament but apparently that's not the case anymore, the HoC could vote for another election but I don't know if that's something realistic.

I guess the fucking Queen technically has the power to dissolve the Parliament but that would be the absolute maximum lulz ending for that gridlock. Edit : she can't anymore, since 2011.
 
Last edited:

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
From what I understand they'd need the delay to legally implement the deal it's not something that can be done overnight
That's what the transition period is supposed to be for.

From what I make of it the Parliament would need to approve a no deal brexit, which it voted against last week, otherwise the withdrawal would be unconstitutional.
This is why it was ridiculous to even have a vote on no deal. No one really outwardly says they want it. Most hardline leavers say a deal is better than no deal, but no deal isn't the end of the world. The idea of the vote was what they wanted May to do next. They rejected her deal, and no deal, and told her to get more time, and the E.U. seem to saying that there is no way forward except to take May's deal, which the Speaker has rejected a vote on unless the terms are substantially changed. So, no deal is the only option...except they voted against it :/

If it hits March 29th without a deal and an approved delay, they kind of have to take it, unconstitutional or not. The problem with this 'law' is that depends on two parties, Britain and the E.U., and while Britain need EU approval to do anything, the same can't be said of the E.U. Britain can reject a no deal all they like, but if they also can't negotiate a deal with the E.U. they can't use their unconstitutional basis to force the E.U. to let them stay or keep negotiating. They'll simply be ejected from the union by E.U. law regardless of what MPs voted that they wanted.
 
Could the EU just say fuck this bullshit and kick them out like you'd shove out a cat standing in the doorway?
Probably but then why do that when you hold all the cards? Either Brexit happens or it doesn't, either way is a win for the EU over England especially if a real brexit triggers a political meltdown of the UK.
 

Крыса

там хорошо, где меня нет
kiwifarms.net
That's what the transition period is supposed to be for.

This is why it was ridiculous to even have a vote on no deal. No one really outwardly says they want it. Most hardline leavers say a deal is better than no deal, but no deal isn't the end of the world. The idea of the vote was what they wanted May to do next. They rejected her deal, and no deal, and told her to get more time, and the E.U. seem to saying that there is no way forward except to take May's deal, which the Speaker has rejected a vote on unless the terms are substantially changed. So, no deal is the only option...except they voted against it :/

If it hits March 29th without a deal and an approved delay, they kind of have to take it, unconstitutional or not. The problem with this 'law' is that depends on two parties, Britain and the E.U., and while Britain need EU approval to do anything, the same can't be said of the E.U. Britain can reject a no deal all they like, but if they also can't negotiate a deal with the E.U. they can't use their unconstitutional basis to force the E.U. to let them stay or keep negotiating. They'll simply be ejected from the union by E.U. law regardless of what MPs voted that they wanted.
I think even the transition period details have to be acted into law, it would probably be impossible to do that between an hypothetical 3rd vote and the 29th ?

The article I've posted up there says there's no ejection mechanism actually, the worse thing that can happen to a member is a suspension of representation and voting rights, so I guess you can be bullied into leaving ? Without representation you're still a part of the EU but have no say whatsoever, so you're basically the autistic child that's left in the corner of the living room while the adults are talking, I don't think any country would accept that for long.
 

BigRuler

lmao bottom text
kiwifarms.net
Could the EU just say fuck this bullshit and kick them out like you'd shove out a cat standing in the doorway?
they can't actively kick anyone out, but they could refuse to extend the deadlines any further, which would result in an automatic hard no-deal brexit when the timer runs out
they won't though, their goal is to stall forever until they figure out a way to get a 'remain' result
 

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
I think even the transition period details have to be acted into law, it would probably be impossible to do that between an hypothetical 3rd vote and the 29th ?
There are no transition period details, except for the duration. It's just a period of time when everything that is agreed in the withdrawal deal are put into place and comes into effect immediately after the U.K. leaves, if it leaves with a deal. I'm not even sure, outside of deciding on length (which could be decided within a week easily, maybe less), what would need to be enacted? Once they leave, they're out. There's no limbo between in and out, if they hit the 29th and leave but don't enact the transition period.

The article I've posted up there says there's no ejection mechanism actually, the worse thing that can happen to a member is a suspension of representation and voting rights, so I guess you can be bullied into leaving ? Without representation you're still a part of the EU but have no say whatsoever, so you're basically the autistic child that's left in the corner of the living room while the adults are talking, I don't think any country would accept that for long.
What it says is that a country "may decide to withdraw from the EU in accordance with ‘its own constitutional requirements’." But that has nothing to do with a deal or not. The constitutional requirements were the referendum and the subsequent vote in parliament to ask the E.U. to enact article 50. That's already been done. There's nothing about that which does or does not require a deal, and MPs voting against no-brexit doesn't constitute a constitutional requirement. See this article which states:

"Parliament's rejection of a no-deal Brexit does not change the law but represents a clear expression of its will and a further significant blow to the waning authority of the prime minister."

Regardless of whatever 'meaningful' vote Westminster might take, everyone readily understands that if they hit the 29th with or without a deal, if a delay isn't granted, that the U.K. is exiting the E.U.,
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino