Guy Verhofstadt Weighs In
Guy Verhofstadt is the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator.
That’s an opinion you can at least partially toss aside.
Q: Which part?
A: “European Parliament needs time to scrutinize in detail, especially concerning citizens rights.”
That’s a joke. The Withdrawal Agreement won’t be changed again. Nor will the European Parliament veto it as it would immediately lead to No Deal.
Verhofstadt is a pompous ass to put things lightly.
Q: Which part is believable?
A: There will not be a long extension. By that I mean after Jan 31 which is what Tusk wants.
The European Parliament can reject or accept. That is it.
Overall Rating: Mostly Noise
Donald Tusk Weighs In
Tusk has always extension after extension, until the UK gets it right, which in his eyes is to remain.
Overall Rating: Total Noise
Johnson Phones Merkel
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1187026832698294272
Guardian Live Comments
The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, and the European parliament’s president have backed Donald Tusk’s call to grant the UK government a Brexit delay up to 31 January 2020. Following a phone call between Tusk, the president of the European council, and Varadkar on Wednesday morning, the two men agreed the EU27 should agree to the request reluctantly tabled by Boris Johnson on Saturday.
Once again, any extension must be unanimous. These are views of two people, one has no vote.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn met with Boris Johnson today, on an election timetable. As you might have expected, nothing was agreed upon.
Macron Holds the Key
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1186970798592008192
“Gov’t side predicted Macron would veto EU extension.”
That I do not believe. But I do believe Macron may not accept anything but a short extension.
My Comments Yesterday
The key concept is that a delay until January solves nothing. In fact, it increases the odds of No Deal.
I believe Macron is aware of this. Tusk and Verhofstadt are oblivious.
Eurointelligence Weighs In This Morning
Watch out for Macron in the Brexit extension debate.
Among the sources we monitor we noted two reports from France suggesting that Brexit extension may not be as clear-cut as the news reports from Brussels suggest. One French commentator said that Emmanuel Macron was not happy with the three-month extension proposed by Donald Tusk. An AfP report quoted an unnamed French minister as saying that France would be happy with an extension of a few days only.
We do not want to arrive at any hard conclusions from these snippets of information. The European Council’s instinct is to extend and pretend. Macron might bow to the majority. Then again, the consensus view in Brussels generally fails to understand the French position. We recall how everybody was shocked by the French veto on the accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania. If you had followed the French debate more closely, you would have been less surprised. The Brexit debate also has a different quality in France.
So let’s look at the scenarios after last night’s two votes – one in favour of the agreed deal and one opposed to the timetabling motion. If the European Council goes for a three month extension – as officially requested by the UK – we have no doubt that Boris Johnson will pull the bill and try to organise elections. But this is not clear-cut either. Labour may stall. There is a lot of opposition within the Labour party. Then again, Jeremy Corbyn would look very weak if he tried to bottle out again, having promised that he would come out in favour of elections immediately after an extension. The Labour leadership also knows that the SNP wants elections. That means there is not much point in resisting the process, since a Tory/SNP majority could easily pass a separate election law to override the fixed-term parliament act. Such a bill would need passage in the House of Lords. It would be a longer process, with elections probably not happening this year.
In the other scenario the European Council agrees only to a short extension, say a month, to force the House of Commons to accelerate its decision. We think this would be a reasonable compromise. The withdrawal bill is sufficiently complex to warrant more scrutiny than a mere three days. But the danger is that a long extension would give the UK parliament another opportunity to procrastinate.
Yesterday’s success at the second reading of the bill was important, but we should not take the bill’s ultimate passage for granted. Some Labour MPs in leave-vote seats have supported it so they can maintain their Brexit credentials. Some of them want a customs union, and might drop their support once it becomes clear that there is no majority.
The official position of the European Council is that they want to stay neutral, i.e. not get involved in the UK’s internal decision making. So the idea is to take the official request and simply accept it. An early break clause might be a compromise. But Macron could say that this was tried before, and failed. Why should it be different this time?
Same Page
Eurointelligence and I are clearly on the same page.
We have snippets from Tusk and Verhofstadt but all we have is snippets from the other side.
However, just because Tusk and Verhofstadt are clueless does not mean their position will lose.
The key point now is that a short extension or conditional extension is very much in play despite comments from Tusk and the European Council.
Whatever decision comes out on Friday, it will likely be “unanimous” no matter how much infighting there was to arrive at the decision.
Means to an Election
Johnson can request one. I expect it would be voted down.
He could pass a one-line bill demanding one. That would only take 50% and it would pass.
Eurointelligence commented “A Tory/SNP majority could easily pass a separate election law to override the fixed-term parliament act.
Yes, but…..
Why not age 12 with voting at school?
That’s how far these jackasses will go to stop Brexit.
Clarification Delay Until Friday
The delay until Friday aids Johnson.
He may not accept or reject until Monday whether the extension is short or long. Then again, why then?
Definitions
- Very Short: 10 days or less
- Short: 11 days to 3 weeks
- Intermediate: longer than 3 weeks but no longer than Jan 31.
- Long: Anything beyond Jan 31. That”s what Tusk wants.
- Flexible: Makes no sense UK will not do anything but delay. But I do not rule it out.
- Conditional: France demands a way forward such as elections.
Options 1-4 are mutually exclusive.
Options 5-6 are mutually exclusive.
Options 5 applies to options 1-4.
Option 6 applies to options 1-3. A way forward rules out a long extension and perhaps even an intermediate extension.
Running Out the Clock
The Benn Bill never stipulated a timeline in which Johnson had to accept. What if Johnson just runs out the clock?
What if Johnson files a legal challenge to Benn next week? On October 31.
I am not suggesting these things are likely.
Rather, I caution against foregone conclusions given all the twists and turns we have seen.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
The UK has it very backwards now. Parliament not only has claimed a positive right over the prime minister’s actions, but it is further reinforcing the negation of royal authority. For example
2)If the European Council decides to agree an extension of the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019, but to a date other than 11.00pm on 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister must, within a period of two days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made, or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension.
(3)But subsection (2) does not apply if the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”
Which simply put obliges the PM to be messenger for parliament to EU asking for an extension on behalf of “government” , says that he must agree to whatever extension EU offers (obviously as a continuation of the power enclosed with the initial request), but must then retract that agreement if parliament votes it down. This is not just absurd but is simply sick. To add to that, in essence the prime minister is being put in a position where the EU might grant an extension of many years, and he have to accept that “by law”. If it were last minute parliament would not be able to vote it down. Frankly, parliament has shown itself to be treasonous by purposefully placing the destiny of UK into the hands of a foreign power, reducing the authority of government with regards to that to zero.
Those (the) pontificator who comments here will surely have his excuses of how parliament can later decide and change at will, like some supreme entity. What a [redacted] . In the real world, for the future integrity of UK, and according to the manner of legal tradition that makes Britain exemplary, you don’t mess around with the meaning of your word.
“6. Conditional: France demands a way forward such as elections”
Wouldn’t an agreement to such an offer constitute “foreign influence”, which would void the offer?
For that matter why can’t UK just veto the extension? Everything I have read says that the offer has to be unanimous among all 27 countries, so, why can’t Britain veto?
Mish, you and others continually refer to the Benn Bill. There is no such thing. Once it was given the la reine le veult it became an Act.
Thank God you’re here to save the day! Enjoy your evening, my remainer friend. God Speed with your glorious union!
Very kind of you, now get your tongue out of your cheek. You also give me the following opportunity; when discussing an Act you should use the present tense, you see it is a living thing. Whilst I am on some advice for the people who don’t understand how the UK works. Think about what your founding fathers revolted against. Arbitrary rule, taxes without representation all imposed by an hereditary monarch. The powers that the hereditary monarch had have been transferred to the Prime Minister who in normal times runs the country as an elective dictatorship. This should teach you to be sarky Harry, unless you like my orbiter dicta.
Are you referring to benn surrender bill
Do you think it worrying that the German directors of Thompson Holidays manage to knock out one ot the principal rivals to the German Tourism industry yet preserve the German portion of it? You see, I don’t believe you have any idea about the game and how it is played.
Oh great knowledgeable do enlighten us
Nah, better to let you stew in your ignorance.
My dear remainer friend,
The UK isn’t working. Not anymore. But thank you for the explanation! After all, I’m just a pleb who clearly doesn’t understand what to vote for or how to be grateful for being ruled by the very people you seem to be defending.
Arbitrary rule, taxes without representation all imposed by the ECB is more like what you demand.
The EU is funded in three ways, 1] a 1% levy on VAT 2] A contribution from Import tariffs and 3] a contribution from each state depending on GDP. All this was voted on and agreed by each member states” parliament. That is taxation with representation.
“That is taxation with representation.”
Not in the UK it isnt, and hasnt been for the past 3 years.
I still dont get why you arent worried about the democratic implications of not upholding the will of the people in the referendum, or how you are OK with all of those remainer MPs who stood for Parliament on false pretences.
Instead you rejoice at a British firm that collapsed whilst under EU laws, and look forwards to a UK that is split from top to bottom. It seems to me that you fight for someone other than the British people.
Are you mad? Why would any UK citizen rejoice at the Job losses at Thompsons? No wonder you are a Brexiteer. I was pointing out that the Germans are already eliminating British competition in preparation for Brexit and you jokers don’t know it is happening. De ar god wake up.
T o be really technical it also is no longer valid since it’s purpose was served.
“It requires the Government to either reach a deal – or gain Parliament’s approval for a No Deal Brexit by today, October 19.”
“If neither of these two conditions have been met, however, by 19th October – ie the day after the European Council meeting concludes – then the Prime Minister must send a letter to the president of the European Council requesting an Article 50 extension until 31 January 2020.”
Johnson did have a deal by the 19th and that very fact extinguishes the act. It is not the government’s fault the Parliament then went and refused to pass it on anything like a reasonable timetable. The fact is that there was ONE condition in the act, that the PM negotiate a deal by October 19, all the rest of the act was in case he did NOT negotiate that deal and those were moot the moment he presented the WAB. Among the moot conditions were that he must accept any extension unless Parliament nixes the extension itself.
I am beginning to think there cannot ever be a deal, it has to be a no deal Brexit for the simple reason you cannot negotiate with political terrorists which is what the remain jackasses are.
When did the liar obtain the extension?
When I had a problem with government (urgent) in Ireland the EU did exactly nothing for me, no help was even on offer, so if they get a single tax dollar from me without listening to my concerns about treatment by an EU member and have no functional methods of resolution, then that is taxation without representation, what the F%$& purpose does the EU serve anyway? Some grand defending army? Does it provide a unified voice in world affairs like the individual nations have in the united nations? Does it do ANYTHING whatever that is not actually redundant? Tariffs? Member states had those or not depending on treaties they negotiated. And common market rules they also negotiated. All the EU does and it is the only function of the EU, is to place the people of Europe under the tyrannical dictatorship of the unelected ECB head.
You are an American living in America, you have no skin in this game.
I am an Irish citizen AR, had you paid attention you would know that.
You returned to America. as I understand it, because you had trouble obtaining your Irish passport and now live in America. When in Ireland did you contact your local TD? Did you contact your MEP? Did you seek help from an Immigration solicitor? I suspect not. The problem of passport issuance is a national competency and the EU has very little authority to deal with issues of national identity. Your gripe with the EU in this case has little or no standing.
No, I am a dual citizen and was living in Ireland when the government refused to replace my lost Irish passport because I did not yet have the national ID card, that they were claiming was NOT an ID card but typical of an EU nation was lying because you cannot get a replacement passport without the national ID card. So I was in a catch 22 of not being able to replace my passport because I had no ID card, and not being able to get an ID card without my passport. Even though I phoned the passport office to inform them that the hotel had found the passport and turned it over to the Guards, who in turned sent it to the passport office, but they had not even received it from Athlone Guards yet. They still destroyed the passport then informed me I could not get a new one till I got the ID card. And all the while I was sick and needing a doctor but could not apply for my medical card till I got a national ID card.
I have the OPTION to live in American where I currently am, that makes me no less a citizen of Ireland, with as you call it skin in the game because if Ireland were not an EU member I would be living there.
The EU has pretty much no jurisdiction over nearly all law in member states and what little jurisdiction it does have is redundant. Funny though how you managed to avoid ENTIRELY the subject of my previous post by dismissing me and other Americans by basically saying butt out, you are American and thus nothing about the EU and by extension Brexit, is any of your business, then wrongly say I am not even a citizen therefore can have no valid opinion. In fact, the evil of the EU is a global phenomenon, like a virus it is killing it’s host (Europe) and is inclined to spread. We have life and death military and financial treaties with both the EU and individual member states. So, take your opinion about skin in the game and kindly store it where the sun don’t shine.
Johnson does not want No Deal before an election.
After might very well be an entirely different matter. At worst, he would be more neutral, about it.
This is why a long extension is very risky for the EU.
More on this in a bit.
At this point, does it even matter? Democracy has utterly failed and as far as I’m concerned, it proves my point of the EU being a dictatorial and undemocratic construct. The United Kingdom is neither united, nor a Kingdom. It’s a decaying dystopia and the majority of voters are fucked over in a magnificent display of corporatism, elitism and nepotism. And let’s not forget the media’s role in this disaster.
And by media, I’m obviously excluding Mish Shedlock from that bunch. Great job on the continuous reporting, Mish…we’re so greatful we can come hear and annoy the fuck out of ourselves over this insane circus.
I’m not so sure now (about not wanting ND before election):
The entire ND narrative has been insisting that if it happens the sky will fall.
Not saying this will happen, just saying I don’t think it will be all that bad if it does.
If he can’t get the other side to agree to an election, ND is definitely his best option. And since he probably can’t get them to, and keeps promising – including Gove – that they will leave on the 31st, perhaps he is still running out the clock until Thursday next.
Ways to finagle ND:
You have touched on them.
He didn’t sign the Benn Act letter, so the Head of Govt has not yet formally requested an extension as required by Law.
He has yet to challenge the Benn Act but he could any second. And clearly it is unlawful:
a) duress
b) separation of Powers
c) requires one billion a month additional expenditure, so the motion fronting it was contrary to Parliamentary Law.
Just as his prorogation was deemed unlawful and therefore never happened, so also the request for an extension can be deemed unlawful and never to have been made, in which case the UK is out on Oct 31st
(especially sweet if the judgment is delayed – thanks to the short extension – until early November, at which point it’s too late to do anything about it!)
If Johnson is being honest in what he says, then he would want No Deal before an election. If he delivers No Deal, all of the Brexit voters, and that is a clear 10%, will vote for him. Better than that, that 10% isnt just a polled group where say 50% of them will actually vote when it comes down to it, but they will nearly all vote, 90% plus, if he delivers No Deal.
That gives him an unassailable lead in the next GE. So my question to you is if he doesnt want No Deal, then why doesnt he want it?
Johnson might go with two weeks – Three is getting iffy but possible, depending on “conditions”.
If France demand a way forward, as in elections Johnson would probably accept.
In that case if the Bill was amended, he would pull it, and possibly even accept a longer extension to say Jan 31.
At this point, Parliament will have to vote for elections before Johnson accepts any extension. He holds all the card here if Parliament doens’t have the votes to replace him directly, and if they did, they would have done it by now.
Definitions Added
1: Very Short: 10 days or less
2: Short: 11 days to 3 weeks
3: Intermediate: longer than 3 weeks but no longer than Jan 31.
4: Long: Anything beyond Jan 31. That”s what Tusk wants.
5: lexible: Makes no sense as UK will not do anything but delay. But I do not rule it out.
6: Conditional: France demands a way forward such as elections.
Options 1-4 are mutually exclusive.
Options 5-6 are mutually exclusive.
Options 5 applies to options 1-4.
Option 6 applies to options 1-3. A way forward rules out a long extension and perhaps even an intermediate extension.
I think Johnson’s plan is very clear at this point- he won’t accept the extension unless it is paired with an election before the end of the year, or it is only for a week at most to get the WA enacted. The Article 50 language is very clear- an extension can’t be given without the consent of Johnson and HMG- the UK Parliament has no standing as the UK representative, and so can’t accept the extension legally. Of course, it is well possible that the law doesn’t matter any more and the EU will ignore this problem, but such an action would only strengthen Johnson’s political position because it would immunize him from the blowback from an extension in the first place- he could simply point out that the EU ignored its own laws to grant the extension.
Remain keeps digging their holes deeper here- the delays are causing them to lose the political support they had. They need to bite the bullet and do one of three things- (1) replace Johnson with a caretake Remain government, (2) let elections occur before the end of the year where the main item on any manifesto is going to be Remain/Exit, or (3) revoke Article 50. I am guessing they don’t have the votes for 1 or 3, so that leaves only 2.
Corbyn refused elections today, as this is suicide for Labor. Boris continue saying that extention request is from Parlament not from him, which hints that no-deal is still an option …
Johnson has laid the grounds for a refusal of the extension unless it comes with what he wants- elections before the end of the year, or the passage of his deal. Come October 31st, if he hasn’t gotten either one, he will refuse the extension. I don’t think he can be any clearer than he has been- “dead in a ditch” is pretty damned clear, in my opinion.
Neither is likely…. but I am still not sure he has got balls to go no-deal…
He has no choice, Krage, if he wants to remain PM. For Johnson, Brexit in one form or the other is the only way to survive politically. This is why, incidentally, why I changed my predictions about Brexit back in July- before then, I was a hardcore predicting that Brexit would never happen- May never appeared to want Brexit, and I assumed she would work tirelessly to frustrate it as best she could, which, as it turned out, she did. The one thing she couldn’t do, though, was retain power.
When Johnson took to the hustings to win over the Tory membership, he made it clear that he supported Brexit in whatever form it took on October 31st- that marker was laid down with the kind of language that can’t be taken back and hope to win any election.
I agree that a short extension is in the cards. If the time is not enough for a general election, that choice can keep the gridlock in place, so it fits the years-old strategy of the EU.
I don’t expect Johnson to run out the clock in this case. He can increase the pressure, yes, but there will be a point when it leads to a vote of no confidence and an interim government (because of “no deal worries”). Alternatively, he can try to push through his deal. On this path, the biggest hurdle is the customs union amendment of Labour which is essentially another gimmick to bring him down.
The problem with the caretake government issue is that there might not be time for it. As of right now, on October 31st, the UK is out of the EU fully with no deal. That is the default. If Johnson wants, he can decline the extension offer on as late a date as he wishes- he can’t be replaced by the 31st any longer. The EU would have to violate its own laws to grant an extension over Johnson’s refusal- not impossible, but such an action would strengthen Johnson, not weaken him.
According to convention, the leader of the opposition can call a vote of no confidence on very short notice. If it goes through, the coalition can elect him as interim PM with a limited mandate (extension request and general election). If Johnson tries to remain PM with Corbyn already elected by the Commons, and all this for the purpose of “no deal”, that would be an extremist position that would alienate his moderate voters. No, he will step down in this case, and he will launch the campaign.
As for the extension, the Benn Act ensures that a January extension must be accepted by the PM, any other duration goes to the House of Commons. He may try to sabotage the law but that is also an extremist position etc.
I honestly think that the October 31 deadline is dead. It was buried when Farage let it go. However, I am just an amateur observer.
Right now, the issue for Remain and the EU is finding an incentive to get Johnson to accept an extension- this is why Johnson is making it clear that his government isn’t requesting it. It is why the EU put the matter off until Friday at the earliest- they don’t have anything yet that Johnson will accept. This has always been the weakness in Remain’s tactics since Johnson became the PM- he is the head the government until Parliament votes him out, or forces him to hold an election- until they remove him or the EU breaks its own laws, he can simply refuse an extension. And by waiting until late October, Remain has only ensured that Johnson wins Brexit if he chooses to act.
Looks like a server redirect for the main mishtalk site is messed up. If you just go to moneymaven.io/mishtalk it redirects to mavensports.
Thanks
will contact the Maven
Another issue is on my iPad Mini3, where the text is all garbled when I hold the iPad upright in portrait. (it works in landscape though, but I guess most people read with their iPad in portrait)
Perhaps other people have similar issues on other iPad models?
Verhofstadt is the personification of the horrorshow that is the EU.
Clearly, the remainers and the EU seek to delay, have a second referendum and continue to twist, worm and weasel to overturn the leave-vote.
That’s as good a conclusion from the last three years and unless an election deals with these traitors swiftly, nothing will happen.