A discussion needs two sides wanting to talk and seek compromise, the eu have not seen this as the relationship with a member state looking to leave the club. Unless the discussion is
eu “there is the deal, we won’t and you can’t change anything”
UK “OK”
eu “Good, sorted”
I wonder what happens if Parliament “instructs” the PM to seek another extension and is told no, just leave. What does parliament and all those who have so stridently opposed the walk away option do then? There has to come a point where this happens.
The withdrawal agreement is a mix of what both sides want and need, and where both have compromised - it was not presented by the commission and they said ‘there you go, sign that…’, and it’s an agreement that gives the UK things that many involved thought wasn’t possible. Overall It’s a very good divorce agreement for the UK, but like any divorce agreement/judgement, it contains things that both sides - separately - find difficult to swallow. The difference is that the EU has swallowed those things (the French are particularly unhappy with it) while the UK, so far, haven’t been able to.
With regards to the recently passed Laws, well what will happen if the government refuses to obey the law is that MP’s will take them to court, the court will decide whether the government has broken the law or not and instruct the government appropriately. If the government has been found to have broken the law, instructed to change policy by the judge, and refused to do so, then the government, or particular ministers within the government will be found in contempt of court, and a warrant for their arrest made.
Additionally, the Civil Service Code - which is legally binding - absolutely forbids CS from carrying out an action they believe/know/should believe is illegal. So that the actual mechanics of government might start to fall apart on the 31st October with CS refusing to carry out the instructions of ministers if they believe them to be illegal.
And if the PM refuses to request an extension then there is an argument that A50 will no longer be valid. It has to be given in accordance with our national constitution and him refusing to obey the law would be in breach of the constitution. It’s all a grey area as the notification has been given - but seeing as the CJEU ruled we can revoke unilaterally I think they would just about be more likely than not to accept this argument.
Maximum sentence for contempt of court is life imprisonment. I doubt he’d get that but the seriousness of this potential future contempt would likely result in several years - for a Prime Minister to ignore clear legislation in the way he says he wants to would be nothing short of the act of a dictator. I know some here want that but I’m sure most Brexiteers wouldn’t want that.
Regardless of how this turns out I do not foresee labour winning another election out right for quite some time. They have always needed the north and Scotland to win now they have really ignored the north and they will not forget that very quickly…
I mean, They still go on about thatcher and the poll tax as a reason not to vote Tory!
The question still remains what if the eu say no more extensions. Unlikely they will as that would mean we don’t pay them anything or anywhere near as much to get out of their crumby club. But if they did say no more it means that the remain mob have caused the waste of so much time, money and energy.
I think though Boris Johnson is bang on the money that we shouldn’t go for another extension just to go over the same old ground, but the remain mob are too stupid to see that the eu won’t cede on anything we don’t like and if it goes to 31 Jan, on about the 14th Jan the same will happen. Allow any of the remain clowns near the table and they will crumble and just give in. I do not see having a deal as a preferential position.
I am unclear as to why just leaving is going to be so bad. There will be a period even with a deal to get things sorted out, the remain mob seem to be some sort of la la land where a deal will be a land of milk and honey.
Not at all, most of us still think it will be worse than the current situation. But we see it as far worse than the potential consequences of no deal. And most of us are prepared to follow the result of the referendum, bit not at the expense of slitting our own throats based on admitted and proven lies during the campaign.
If no deal really means the fear and chaos predicted by the no deal blockers, it would be short-lived as all those affected would put things in place to get round it.
If the eu had been grown up we would have things in place to cover all situations, but they won’t allow it as that would make leaving far too uncomplicated. Which they cannot under any circumstances allow.
The best thing really is have a GE before OCT 31. I could easily see a Conservative majority, topped up with the Brexit Party, get leaving the eu over the line and get on with life. Rather than this shambolic charade where remainers are unable to see beyond the end of their eyelids, just baulk everything, because they don’t like it. What are they scared of? Countries have sought self-determination by leaving Empires for years and are they in such a bad shape?
Who watched the car wreck of Emily Thornberry on Question Time on Thursday evening? She is without doubt the most sanctimonious and arrogant creature ive ever seen.As hard as she tried she also couldnt hide her patronising nature either.How do these people get anywhere near the levers of power ?
Intriguing letter in the DT. Apparently only one eu member state is required to veto an extension request, the writer postulates if we could (we’re still members) veto our own request.
TBH it feels like Parliament is continually vetoing the government at the moment, so effectively vetoing itself, so there is a precedence for this.
No deal = overnight application of WTO conditions. Instant chaos as systems change overnight. Be that people crossing boarders in ports and airports, trade moving across borders and the immediate need for a hard border in Ireland for the EU to protect itself.
Money from the EU which supports the British economy ends overnight
Deal = we “leave” overnight but the process is gradual. As part of the deal certain subsidies are available to farmers and science are gradually cut back, and the cut off date is worked towards being known in plenty of time to plan for it.
The same for trade and medicines.
I seems to recall reading sometime ago that leaving “with a deal” would see a two year(?) transition period as things are sorted out so after those 24months we’ve then left fully…
Although accept all of the above could he wrong and I’ve got the complete wrong end of the stick…??
There are two fundamental problems with no deal - firstly that it’s the overnight end of an overarching regulatory and certification regime that is accepted by all the suppliers/purchasers in a multi party supply chain. That stops overnight, which means simply making anything that contains both UK and EU components or processes impossible - everything from milk, to cheese to cars. Overnight.
The second problem is diplomatic. As far as the EU is concerned a withdrawal agreement is the start point for a future agreement - in whatever form that takes - without a withdrawal agreement, which is effectively tidying up all the loose ends, the EU believes there simply isn’t a basis for negotiating a future agreement.
Rather like in a divorce - you can’t sort out things like spousal support payments, child support payments and child contact arrangements until you’re sorted out how the marital assets are going to be divided up, and where and with whom the children are going to live.
Still don’t see the problems it will force people to sit down and get on with discussing things and getting them sorted out. Two years is two years too long and I can’t see the eu being grown up enough to make that happen within that time frame. If we leave with no deal, all the petty regulations etc will still exist as too many jobs for the obsessive rely on them. Say for instance UK produces things and are able to sell them more cheaply than their foreign counterparts can you see the eu accepting the notion of a free market economic system? They’ve not been party to that idea since we joined if not before.
Also do not lose sight of the fact eurocrats have said from day one, we cannot let the UK leave and have a better experience than the others staying in the eu. I wouldn’t and don’t trust them and read that to mean they will tie us to them in some way, limiting the power to make truly independent trading arrangements and fully control ourselves. If that happened could you really see countries in the eu thinking we need controlling from Brussels, when we have a perfectly good government of our own?
The eu has done nothing for us except drag us and the others into a ill-conceived scheme whereby bit by bit nations cede governmental decision making and ultimately foreign policy making to what is a foreign power.
While, in general, being part of the club means following the rules (and we have to date played a part in setting the rules) it is possible to exercise an opt out in certain areas which we have done.
While wikipedia is far from infallible, this link provides some basic background for those who like hard facts:
Well on a different but related subject … should the challenges pprove too difficult … it would seem that one option for Dawn McCafferty’s replacement has been getting prepared for the role!
I can’t see the eurocrats letting the opt outs persist as they push for greater political interference across the bloc. Given how easily previous governments have ceded control by signing treaties, I couldn’t see them putting up much resistance.
We should have had a referendum when greater political union was brought in, if not 1986 then definitely at Maastricht. But we didn’t and look where we are. We could have been out and free of the shackles.
