I hear that Boris Johnson has negotiated a deal with the EU. What’s the significance of it? Does this mean the UK is leaving the EU at the end of the month or are there still additional hurdles to clear (a vote tomorrow?)? Is there still a realistic possibility Brexit will be delayed or cancelled?
In short: Someone please help this poor 'Merica-focused Europhobe understand your strange, foreign ways.
The vote tomorrow on BoJo’s deal is pretty much the same as the votes on Teresa May’s deals, only with a slightly worse deal. I can’t imagine it passing, but you never know.
If it does not pass, the EU will grant yet another extension, in order to give the PM a chance to try to push the deal through Parliament, because we all know the fifth time’s the charm, or else to work out some other plan. Or, possibly, say “you know what? You’re never going to get it together. Goodbye,” with No-Deal Brexit happening in two weeks. Or Parliament can grow a spine and rescind Article 50.
Cynically, I think that Johnson wants a No-Deal Brexit, and the best way of getting one is to lose the game of brinksmanship with the EU, who will forever be his scapegoat for why things in the United Kingdom of England and Wales are shit. What happens in Scotland and NI, I can’t predict.
Can you clarify this, please.
I don’t know much about article 50 but it’s an EU law, right? Is there there a corresponding article in UK law or would the UK have to alter its constitution to undo its withdrawal in “in accordance with its own [but now new] constitutional requirements”.
I think “rescind Article 50” is shorthand for “cancel Brexit and stay in the EU.”
I’m relying on information like this.
Thank you. That was very helpful.
Still, and I may be getting too hung up on the grammar, would the UK revoke Article 50 or simply refuse to adhere to that law? There may be no difference.
Article 50 is the provision in the treaty that formed the EU that allows a member state to leave the Union. When people talk about the UK “revoking Article 50,” it’s a shorthand for “revoking their petition to leave the Union as allowed under Article 50.” The UK would not actually be changing the law - Article 50 is going to remain a part of the EU regardless of how Brexit works out - and “refusing to adhere to it” doesn’t really make any sense in this context.
That makes sense and I think I understand it better now. Thank you.
At the risk of hijacking this thread even more, I’ll offer that “to leave the Union as allowed under Article 50” means that it (leaving) must be done according to the constitution of the nation doing the leaving. So I wondered what if any constitutional issues might be raised in the UK, e.g. who, ultimately, makes the call - Parliament, the PM, or even the Monarch(!).
Y’all know we have a Boris Johnson thread that has been focusing on Brexit that is alive and kicking… https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879601 Lots of Brits there and some good discussions/debates especially in the last 4-5 pages to date.
The problem with entering some of the Brexit/BoJo threads as a naif is getting a reception along the following lines:
Which I get. But that sort of reply justifies these occasional orphan threads.
You know, with 99.99% of dopers, I’d take this as being tongue-in-cheek. But considering your… positions on… various subjects, I’m not so sure.
In what sense are you a “Europhobe” ?
Wait, why is the DUP sitting on the opposition benches? I know they’re voting against the government today, but isn’t the confidence and supply agreement still in effect?
I thought they did anyway, not actually being part of the government.
The technicalities of the present situation are that
The core problem is that we are deeply but narrowly divided as to whether we should leave, how we should leave, what sort of future relationship we should have, and whether everything we think we want can be achieved - and this is reflected in the make-up of the House of Commons.
I would think that the confidence and supply agreement is not in effect any more. The DUP feel (rightly) that they have been betrayed.
Johnson’s deal is likely to lead within a few years to Northern Ireland splitting off from the rest of the UK and uniting with the Irish Republic.
Now that I think about it ever since Boris lost his majority with the last Liberal Democrat defection, it would be pointless to pretend that there is still a confidence and supply agreement in effect and that became even more evident when Boris removed the whip from the rebel Tory MPs. So, there is no point in the DUP sitting with the government
I do not even remotely understand what happened today (Saturday). I read the BBC coverage, which attempts to dumb it down considerably, but it didn’t help. The vote is delayed until Monday, because… reasons?
It’s only if a party is part of the government that it sits on the government side. DUP isn’t part of the Government.
It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.
I think the big development is the Letwin amendment. I could be reading this wrong, but basically it looks like it reaffirms the previously passed Benn Act, which requires the PM to seek a Brexit extension to January if he is unable to avoid no-deal before the current deadline on October 31.
I think the fear was that BoJo was going to find an interpretation of the legislation for the current deal that nullified the Benn Act, and would allow him to pursue or threaten no deal.
So they’re still counting on an extension, then. The consensus seems to be that they’ll get it (I disagree, but I’m a pessimist). What’s the end game? Do they seriously think they can do in three months what they could not do in 31?