That… seems grossly irresponsible. Why would you assume any degree of competence from anyone involved in this shitshow at this point?
Indeed I have never even heard before of this Fortean thing, but in the world of business the first and most important international business paper is the FT and it is know as the FT.
Because any sort of emergency can be easily dealt with by a few phone calls to continue business as usual.
Much as the British love an emergency, where everyone gets to run around in tin hats and uniforms being heroic, this deadline is entirely artificial. It can easily be moved by the Maybot and her government when the pressure becomes too much. It won’t take long for that to happen if the Dover crossing gets choked and the money markets go haywire. They know pretty much what will happen, the political consequences will be severe.
Someone would have to step in to save the country from May’s Brexit disaster. There are plenty of contenders.
I will stockpile plenty of eggs should I need them to throw at Rolls Royces.
There are only two ways to move the deadline and both take more than a simple phone call.
Option 1 is that the UK requests an extension. That requires the agreement of the EU. From previous statements, the EU has said that they will only agree to an extension if it comes with a clear proposal from the UK government about concrete steps to resolve the political impasse, such as an election or a second referendum.
Option 2 is that the UK unilaterally withdraws its Article 50 notice, calling off Brexit. Can you see that happening?
Note that if the chaos at Dover develops, that’s because the March 29 deadline has already passed. Neither of these options would then be available, because Britain would no longer be a member of the EU.
If it gets to the middle of March, and there’s no hint that the EU will extend the deadline, then yes, I could see that happening if there’s an election or referendum called. Withdrawing it doesn’t prevent it from being triggered again.
Aw hell, just have a civil war already and be done with it.
They are not going to give hints. Their line is that since our government has decided to leave, it’s up to our government to come up with a way of doing so that’s workable for us and doesn’t expect the EU27 to turn the basic principles of the single market upside down. Why would they?
That’s why an extension would be dependent on our government coming up with a serious prospect of something changing from the present parliamentary impasse, instead of expecting them to come up with a way to pull the government’s irons from the fire.
And if it looked as though there might be a serious prospect of our government, or successive governments, treating Article 50 like a hokey-cokey, then they’re even less likely to do us any favours.
Basil and Sybil Fawlty. Basil has screwed things up again as usual:
Basil: Well, what am I supposed to do?!!
Sybil: Tell them you made a mistake.
Basil: Oh brilliant! Brilliant! Is that what made Britain great?? (jumps up and down) “I’m thso thsorry I made a mithstake!”
Well, the idea is that if an election or referendum is called, they will grant an extension - but if for whatever reason it looks like they won’t then withdrawing article 50 is the only option to avoid crashing out - and the purpose of a new election or referendum would be to avoid that.
As for what will happen if we withdraw it then re-trigger, it can’t be worse than leaving without a deal.
It is true, it is hard to imagine the reputation for coherence of the UK government actually getting very much lower now.
I’m increasingly convinced that the unity of the Conservative Party only endures because they’re in government and Brexit hasn’t happened. After March, whether Brexit is cancelled, No-Deal’d, Deal’d, or postponed, I think it’ll snap in two.
The March 29th deadline has a massive totemic importance for many Brexiters and Remainers alike, and if it’s bumped, it’ll kick the foundations of Brexit even more.
It’s risky, to put it no higher, to revoke the Art 50 notification while simultaneously announcing an intention to re-trigger it. Since that’s inconsistent with the conditions stated by the European Court of Justice for a valid revocation, there’s a distinct possiblity that the EU would simply reject the revocation as invalid, likely leading to a dispute which would ultimately have to be resolved by the European Court of Justice.
Of course, you can revoke and then hold a general election, and then the government and parliament returned at that general election can make its own decision about whether to re-trigger. But if I was a keen Brexiter I wouldn’t be at all confident that a new government/parliament would make such a decision.
Plus, the whole exercise would be pointless unless the UK were to take a radically different approach to the negotiations the second time around. It’s not clear what that approach would be.
More and more, I’m thinking of the break-up of the Conservatives over the repeal of corn laws as the precedent.
Yes, there is a lot of common ground in the Conservative Party, on issues other than Brexit. But the views within the Conservative Party on Brexit are so strongly held and so divergent, that I’m really starting to wonder how the party can hold together.
And, that conflict within the Conservatives is largely responsible for the political deadlock. Parliamentary government assumes that those in the majority in the Commons are in general agreement on policy. But if they can’t agree, at some point there has to be a smash-up.
Just as a fer-instance, until recently I had never known that Gladstone had once been seen as the rising future of the old Tory-Conservative Party.
Gladstone! The Grand Old Man of Victorian Liberalism! But when the smash-up over the Corn Law repeal happened, he ended up in the new Liberal party.
Which makes you wonder, who wants Boris or Rees-Moog when the schism happens?!?
It’s not impossible they’d not only split over Brexit, but also (to a lesser extent) over fiscal austerity, where some of their MPs and not a few of their people in local government are realising the damage that’s resulted.
Well, one can but hope.
It is, but if the other option is leaving without a deal while an election or referendum are pending then it could be the best option. Hopefully it won’t come to that, but time is running out to achieve anything, even the frankly poor deal May has “negotiated”, other than crashing out.
Up until an month or so ago, I believed that someone would blink (presumably the government) and we’d end up not leaving, or at least not at the end of next month. I still think it makes no sense to leave then, but I’m thinking it’s more likely.
It would seem to me that this would be a very clear political reason and justification to run an election - that the UK is handicapped and undermined by the fact of a lack of a stable and clear political consensus even on the nature of the parameters of a Brexit and so no government can be expected to be able to successfully negotiate.
I would hope that all but the most irrational Brexiter, les Faragistes, would see the value of withdrawing the Article on the basis of a clear national election on some clear propositions…
No one right now is taking the Zombie government of Madame May very seriously, not EU, not Japan… okay not not one, the Faroe Islands are, voila, you have your wool secured, this being very good for the Brexiters 18th century idea of the world…
“No-deal Brexit would make Britain less safe” as the UK would lose several powers, tools and intelligence sources used for crimefighting.
Is there anything Brexit isn’t going to fuck up?
But the Faroe Islands drove a very hard bargain! :)
After all, it turned out so well the last time you had one!