What is the default position following A50

[yellowallpaper]

When the last day of extensions are reached and there is no deal reached, is the default position stay in the EU or drop out without a deal? What does it say legally?

Leave. In order to remain in the EU we would either need to organise another extension or revoke (which is confirmed as possible).

Does that mean BJohnson just needs to sit on his hands and he will get what he wants? Or is this no deal thing just a ploy to force the EU to improve TMays deal?

Sorry for the ignorance.

He can no longer just sit on his hands because the law says that if he has not got a deal by 19th October he must request an A50 extension until 31st January.

No deal could still happen though if

• MPs vote explicitly in favour of no deal
• the EU refuses an extension

or at a later date (ie at the end of another extension).

Won't the EU stop giving extensions eventually?

I think that they might start putting more conditions on the extensions - the government has absolutely spaffed away the last one. It's shameful.

What type of conditions could the eu add to an extension?

I can't see a way forward except a second referendum.

If the Tories won a GE, BJ could end his alliance with the DUP so that the border can be in the Irish Sea. Then he should get the support for May's Deal.

The EU has indicated they will allow another extension, the so called rebel alliance had spoken to them privately before this week's bill was presented. I'd be surprised if they offer another one without a People's Vote, or a general election with a guarantee of a PV afterwards.

A border in the sea sticks two fingers up at the GFA. Only a government that didn't give a fuck about its citizens in NI would vote for that. So quite possible with the Tories.

Does that mean BJohnson just needs to sit on his hands and he will get what he wants?

Yup. He'd be breaking the law and all. He has that freedom of will like any other criminal.

Cummings seems to think the lawbreaking is reasonable (whispering in BJ's ear). Cummings isn't the one who'd go to prison & so what if BJ does go? DC & ERG get what they want.

@MrsMaiselsMuff - A border in the sea sticks two fingers up at the GFA.

No it doesn't. It maintains the GFA wrt the border on the island of Ireland. It requires compliance with single market regulations in NI, which would not be required in GB. It's about ensuring non-compliant goods do not enter NI. It doesn't interfere with NI's ability to sell to GB or freedom of movement for citizens.

The DUP have claimed that separate treatment would undermine Northern Ireland’s constitutional status in the UK, but it is already treated separately from GB in many ways (including with DUP support for separate laws on so-called “moral” issues), without its constitutional status being affected.

It requires compliance with single market regulations in NI, which would not be required in GB

That goes against the GFA according to both DUP and Lord Trimble (who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts in development of the GFA).

One the principles of the GFA is mutual consent. Changes to NI status from the rest of UK is possible only with mutual consent. Some in Ireland may want a border in the Irish sea, but it appears that NI do not.

He can no longer just sit on his hands because the law says that if he has not got a deal by 19th October he must request an A50 extension until 31st January

Any previously passed law can be overturned. A GE would likely result in a coalition between Brexit and Conservative Party. If they had a majority that resembled the number of constituents that voted leave in 2016 (400+) they would be able to get law changed easily.

Recent polls show that more people fear Corbyn as PM more than they fear a no deal brexit. So labour's chance of winning a GE don't look good. Might explain why they are opposed to a GE?

That Johnson has to request an extension to Article 50 does not force the EU to agree. EU have previously said they would not agree to any further extensions unless there were compelling reasons such as a further referendum or a GE. However, both are ruled out.

EU would then face a dilemma.

If they refuse to extend then UK is forced out the EU without a deal. Then all the bleats about UK being difficult, GFA will collapse and no trade deal with USA, etc., go away as no deal would be a result of EU action as opposed to UK not following its own laws.

If EU do extend without the conditions for extension being present (further referendum or GE) are they not advertising that they don't want the UK to leave at all? Article 50 does not state that a member can not leave the EU unless an agreement is made that all other members are happy with. So it would be impossible and illegal under EU law to extend forever with the purpose of keeping members locked into the EU forever. That would be BAD FAITH by the EU.

Another alternative is that Johnson sends a second letter to EU stating that UK does not want an extension and lists the reasons why. That way he has complied with UK law.

Reasons for UK not wanting an extension could include, but not be limited to;

EU has stated WA can't be revisited anyway, so what would an extension achieve?

Article 50 does not require an agreement.

WTO provides a mechanism for EU and UK to continue trade until other arrangements are need.

31Mistigri but surely this bill they're doing must say if an extension is denied we revoke? Did none of the people involved in this consider these circumstances?

The new bill is a bit of a joke.
BJ can ask for an extension ( so he has complied), then send a second letter saying why they don’t want it.
Ball is in EU’s court, then we are still stuck.
Revoke may suit retainers but the Leavers will go mad.
Only solution seems to be WA.

I still don’t get; what is the issue with a border in the Irish Sea?

but surely this bill they're doing must say if an extension is denied we revoke

The bill can not say that for several reasons;

Article 50 does not require an agreement to be made.

Laws passed in the UK do not flow over into EU law.

There has been no parliament vote on revoke. Such vote would have to be the outcome of a further referendum or General Election.

A referendum could be put to voters with a simple question;

"No deal or revoke"

Parties could put in their manifestos before the next GE that revoke is what they want. People can choose parties accordingly. However, they does not get around the Miller Case that Brexit decisions have to go through parliament and have to be voted upon.

If EU refusal to extend obliges the member who wanted to leave to revoke their application, that gives EU the power to keep members in the EU against their will.

@CurlyWurlyTwirly

No matter how you voted, all that is happening in Parliament is what is known as;

"Can is kicked down the road, but no solution found"

So the journey continues until you reach the same can. If no solution found then you either kick the can again or call it a day.

@MysteryTripAgain - That goes against the GFA according to both DUP and Lord Trimble (who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts in development of the GFA).

The DUP oppose the GFA. Trimble was dragged kicking and screaming into the peace process and holds a similar position to the DUP in many regards. He opposed cross-border cooperation but did eventually accept a very diluted version. I certainly wouldn't be holding Trimble up as a protector of the GFA.

The DUP oppose the GFA

I know.

@MysteryTripAgain - If EU do extend without the conditions for extension being present (further referendum or GE) are they not advertising that they don't want the UK to leave at all? Article 50 does not state that a member can not leave the EU unless an agreement is made that all other members are happy with. So it would be impossible and illegal under EU law to extend forever with the purpose of keeping members locked into the EU forever. That would be BAD FAITH by the EU.

That has to be one of the most bizarre pieces of non-logic I've seen in a while. The EU will only grant an extension if asked. They cannot impose an extension. The EU have said they will only grant another extension for a substantial reason, such as a GE or referendum. The current request can be seen as a substantial reason as there is likely to be a change in government, either through a GE or a government of national unity.

It is the UK who is refusing to leave. It is the UK who have repeatedly asked for extensions. The EU have stated the red lines for them wrt a deal. The UK have stated their red lines which will result in breaking the GFA.

The UK have a choice: brexit in compliance with the GFA, no deal and deal with the consequences, or revoke.

They cannot impose an extension

Correct.

The EU have said they will only grant another extension for a substantial reason, such as a GE or referendum

Also correct, but those events are off the table at the moment.

The current request can be seen as a substantial reason as there is likely to be a change in government, either through a GE or a government of national unity

Disagree

The request by Johnson, assuming he actually does it, is forced by law. Parliament will reconvene on 14 Oct 2019. If there is no agreement on a further referendum or a GE by 19 Oct 2019, then Johnson would be making a request for extension without a referendum or GE.

So how would EU standby their previous statements that extension to be awarded only if there are compelling reasons when it has not been decided whether or not there will be a referendum or GE?

as there is likely to be a change in government, either through a GE or a government of national unity

Do you think the EU will extend on the basis of what might happen as opposed to what will happen? I think not.

The UK have a choice: brexit in compliance with the GFA

GFA is not part of EU law as both yourself and Bellinisurge have previously stated. Article 50, signed by all 28 EU members, does not reference the GFA.

no deal and deal with the consequences

What consequences?

or revoke

Revoke will have to be voted in by MPs as per UK law from the Miller case. Can't see MPs doing that as it means the 498 MPs who voted to invoke Article 50 have egg on their faces.

@MysteryTripAgain - So how would EU standby their previous statements that extension to be awarded only if there are compelling reasons when it has not been decided whether or not there will be a referendum or GE?

Compelling reasons is not limited to a formal declaration of a new referendum or a GE.

GFA is not part of EU law as both yourself and Bellinisurge have previously stated. Article 50, signed by all 28 EU members, does not reference the GFA.

So what? It is a peace treaty between 2 states, one of which is part of EU27. Negotiations are between EU27 and UK. All issues that affect EU27, can be, and are, considered as part of the negotiations. It would be negligent of the EU27 not to consider how it impacts on a deal.

The only party that wants to break the GFA is the UK. The EU27 are, at Ireland's behest, insisting that they don't. They can't force integrity on the UK, but they can refuse to be a party to that lack of integrity.

@MysteryTripAgain - What consequences?

Do you really believe leaving without a deal is a good thing? Otherwise, you are well aware of the potential consequences of leaving without a deal.

Compelling reasons is not limited to a formal declaration of a new referendum or a GE

They are the only 2 that I remember the EU giving to extend Article 50. So what are the others?

It is a peace treaty between 2 states, one of which is part of EU27

Correct, but it is not a treaty signed by the other EU26. Can't convince myself that every single member of the remaining 26 are hung up on a treaty they are not party to.

The EU27 are, at Ireland's behest, insisting that they don't

Is that correct? Thought Varadkar was dealing with Barnier on Ireland's obligations with respect to EU border control?

Are you telling me that all Eastern European Countries are pressing Barnier over the Ireland border?

but they can refuse to be a party to that lack of integrity

Not every member of the EU trades with all of the other 27 members. So some not bothered if UK is in or out other than UK is the third largest donor.

Do you really believe leaving without a deal is a good thing

Given the choice between;

No deal, or;

Cancel Brexit

It is no deal for me.

@MysteryTripAgain - They are the only 2 that I remember the EU giving to extend Article 50. So what are the others?

They were examples of compelling reasons, not an exhaustive list.

Correct, but it is not a treaty signed by the other EU26. Can't convince myself that every single member of the remaining 26 are hung up on a treaty they are not party to.

Doesn't matter whether they are or not. They are part of the EU27. The EU27 have agreed to have Ireland's back in this regard.

Is that correct? Thought Varadkar was dealing with Barnier on Ireland's obligations with respect to EU border control?

What has that got to do with the price of fish?

Given the choice between; No deal, or Cancel Brexit. It is no deal for me.

Your ability to avoid answering the question asked is amazing.