Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It’s OK - he wouldn’t turn up to the meetings, just claim his salary and expenses... ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Let's get ourselves chucked out for failing to comply with an international agreements requirements. Then we can set up new international agreements that we will 100% comply with (we promise)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

We're not out yet, but I understand we aren't allowed to attend certain meetings and discussions . . they started it :D

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Err no, we started it !

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

You mean like the EU treaty that specifies that Article 50 and the WA is to be a transitional agreement and therefore can't include anything like the backstop? And allegedly against WTO rules. To begin with, NI becomes a different customs territory as it will have different customs rules and tariffs.
Link

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

And so we should have - but we need to finish it by leaving the rotten disgrace that the EU is. Simples. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Which EU treaty was that?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Lisbon.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Ah, yes I have seen arguments that the WA was in conflict with Article 50 and in particular section 2;

with particular focus on;

The argument that the backstop is not part of the withdrawal but a permanent arrangement is somewhat strong. However, there is one killer line in the WA;

The WA which included the backstop does seem to my non-lawyer eyes comply with Article 50.2.

However, the counter argument I guess is that the backstop will become permanent if the 'unless and until' clauses are not met. This would suggest a lack of good faith which goes against Article 5 of WA, hence the need for an arbitration panel

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Whatever way you look at it, the backstop is not "unambiguously limited in time".
Link
The backstop starts after the end of the WA. Before then the WA applies and the backstop isn't needed. When the period covered by the WA ends, everything in Article 50 ends.


Any negotiations on the "future relationship" can only start until after the WA comes in to force, IE we have left the EU. In theory, the UK might sign up to the backstop at that point, but it can't be required to do so before then, and certainly not as a condition of the WA.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

:bump: Just bumping this up the list. I’ve a feeling we’ll be needing it very soon. ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I should imagine our resident remainers will be very vocal. :)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Not really, last night was a clear mandate and reinforcement of the original referendum result.

I'll never agree with it, and I'll always believe it was the wrong thing to do. Personally I hope we will rejoin ASAP.

However ,Boris had better not cock this up, and whilst i don't like the man he's so far achieved what he set out to do (and achieved it very well it must be said) the next stage of the process is even more critical, get it wrong and the tories i suspect will be out of power for a considerable time (of course that requires Labour or the Lib Dems to be able to field a decent leader)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

There isn't much to be vocal about really is there? The argument is settled now. The Government has a mandate and the majority to pass the agreement.

I think there are positives here. The size of the majority means Johnson will not be in hock to the whims of the ERG. This will hopefully give him more room to negotiate the next stage of Brexit and make concessions which was what caused issues for May and Johnson during the Article 50 talks.

Most importantly this is hopefully now a period of calm and boredom in British politics. A less fractious time, although I worry the U.K will break up soon.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Yep, 53% vs 47% ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Good take on Twitter;

*edited for bad language

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

We can only hope that Remain dissenters in the Conservative Party don't scupper Boris' plans for Brexit.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Or the ERG if they think his deal is BRINO.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Not really - I didn't think the Referendum result was legitimate (for all the many reasons both sides have posted for the last couple of years), but as I said last night on the Election thread, the vote is an overwhelming mandate for Brexit.

Let's get it done.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I would agree with that now we know exactly what deal is on offer and the public have still gone for it. However doubt whether they've read the withdrawal agreement, realised how long trade talks and real Brexit might take, or the realise effects on economy/living standards e.g. an equivalent 10% cut in wages. The political price could be very high if it doesn't work out.

However they've made their choice, move on. .

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

+1

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Indeed.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It was made clear in the election the we would have a trade deal by 2021, and the '10% cut in wages' is a figment of your imagination.

---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:13 ----------

Despite all the profits of doom, the pound and shares have soared due to the election result.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/av...o-deal-brexit/

Trade deals take time, no one can guarantee it for a particular date.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Was "profits of doom" a Freudian slip? :D

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The "deal" on offer is only meant to be a transitional one. Negotiations on that couldn't start until Article 50 was triggered, and that couldn't happen until after the referendum. Any future ongoing deal can only start to be negotiated once we've left the EU, ie start of hard Brexit or start of WA.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

That 10% assumed a no-deal Brexit. Boris has stated categorically that he will get a trade deal by 2021.

---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Ha ha! That was quite accidental! Funny, though...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Hopefully a good one...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I can't quite understand why a common assumption of the remainers is that we would voluntarily enter into a bad deal.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

We’re all leavers now...

It’s not an assumption, but since we have stated to the other side in the negotiations that it must be completed by a certain arbitrary date, it gives them leverage - no one willingly enters into a bad deal, but if the deal is less favourable than what we have now, it’s a bad deal.

I want a good deal, as that’s what’s best for our country,

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

We have the leverage. The EU export more to us than we do to them - it is in their interests, as well as ours, to get a good deal. The time limit will concentrate minds.

We already meet all the standards and specifications required for trading with the EU, so 12 months is certainly do-able and I see no reason why we should not get an acceptable outcome.

We need to get a lot more positive about this and stop keep assuming the worst.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

How does it give them leverage? Don't forget no deal is still on the table.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

44% of our exports go to the EU. However the UK only represents 8% of EU exports. That's why they have the upper hand in any negotiations.

'No Deal' is more if a threat for the EU to use against us than the other way round. However it would damage both which is why it won't happen.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Got any figures for Imports from the EU and how those will have an effect if they won't deal?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It's weird that it has been Ireland putting the biggest stumbling blocks in the way of the WA, but they will lose massively if there are restrictions. They currently benefit from having a common language with the UK.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Ireland has been playing the EU’s strategy of obstructionism in the hope of something changing in British politics to either stop Brexit or soften it to Norway+ or similar.

I think we will see things move surprisingly fast now.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Yes, well, expressing that in percentage terms is very clever, but it doesn't explain the position in a way that shows the reliance the EU has on trade with the UK.

A better way of looking at it is to quote the obvious figures. I don't have the up to date statistics to hand but in 2017, the EU exported £67bn more to us in goods and services than we did to them. Now that is why the EU will benefit from a deal, so it is not all one way against us as you and your fellow pushy remainers like to portray.

I think we all recognise Project Fear when we see it.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------

To be honest, I was surprised that Ireland pushed back as hard as they did. They were actually pushing towards a 'no deal', so it was rather reckless of them, to be honest.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

But I were a retailer, losing access to 44% of my customers will have a much greater effect on me than the larger retailer next to me losing access to 8% of their customer base, surely.

Whilst the monetary amounts may be similar, the impact on the smaller retailer will be greater - or am I missing something?

Recent trading figures here - https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-7851

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

If I were a retai facing losing 44% of my customers I would be looking into selling to the larger customer base that would be opening up to me by no longer being part of a closed group of customers.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The 3 largest economies in the world are China ($25.3 trillion, 19% of the world's total GDP), the EU ($22 trillion, 16% of total GDP), and the USA ($20.5 trillion, 15% of total GDP) - together, they are 50% of the world's GDP.

If you think a country with under a seventh of the EU's GDP (the UK) will have the same negotiating power with China and the USA, never mind the smaller countries, you are being, I believe, optimistic.

The EU currently has 41 trade agreements covering 72 countries - the UK currently participates in those agreements, and the UK is seeking continuity for its existing EU trade agreements with a number of countries after Brexit (but this isn't guaranteed) - trade with them made up about 11% of UK trade in goods and services in 2018, so add that to the 45% (latest figures) of our exports to the EU, 55% of our exports are at risk (of having as good a deal as we have now).

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

What you are missing is the increased trade we can get from the rest of the world (which, incidentally, is rather bigger than the EU!)

But the thing you are missing is that trade with the EU will continue. Whether or not we get a trade deal, this will continue to be the case.

I think you are severely misunderstanding how much additional trade awaits us outside the confines of the EU. The noises from President Trump alone are very encouraging.

And incidentally, if you have such an issue with chlorinated chicken, you don't have to buy it. There is no compulsion here, it is a choice.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

What will we be selling the world that we don't currently?

What choice is there when you open up your market to products produced so cheaply in such awful conitions that the only way to make them consumable is to dip them in a bucket of chlorine, so many farmers have gone out of business in Australia iirc that they're actually considering withdrawing from their US trade agreement and look what happened when Japan tried to set up something like nice for their drug procurement, America threatened to pull out of their agreement and if you think trump is encouraging us it's not for our benefit, this is a man who has said repeatedly that the only good deal is one where he wins and everyone else loses

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Such as?

So you’re stating we will keep the deal we have if no deal is agreed? That statement is not congruent with actuality- if we don’t have a deal by the end of 2020, we revert to WTO terms.

Trump said "Congratulations to Boris Johnson on his great WIN! This deal has the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative than any deal that could be made with the EU. Celebrate Boris!” He didn’t say who it would be lucrative for - we would be negotiating with a country who, quite rightly, would be working in its own interest, not ours, and has an economy five times our size.

I never mentioned chlorinated chicken, but nice try for introducing irrelevant comments...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

So now they knew what that were voting for and still voted for it. So that much lauded 2nd Ref that would have gone the other way when the ignorant were educated would have been a waste of time?

After 3.5 years, of being informed by the Remain camp, i’m Sure they know just fine.

---------- Post added at 16:53 ---------- Previous post was at 16:50 ----------

Indeed, it cannot be guaranteed, but we are starting from perfect alignment, so we should be right to expect it to be quicker than usual.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It’ll be quicker than usual if we agree to the "level playing field", which BJ has said we won’t.

https://www.ft.com/content/30a1b750-...f-cc63de1d73f4

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

When we get out of the EU next month, we will be looking at forging trade deals with China, the US and India. None of these countries have a deal with the EU, if I remember correctly. We are also looking at exploring opportunities on the continent of Africa as well as other countries with markets we can exploit. The Asian Pacific trade bloc is also high on the list.

Your dismissal of the US as a potential trading partner is quite extraordinary, so pardon me if you really didn't intend to give me the standard 'chlorinated chicken' retort that is so beloved of Mr K. I don't suppose it has occurred to you that we can specify standards for raising birds if they are to be exported to the UK, just as we can for the purchase of clothes from India. If we apply those same standards uniformly, the US will not suffer a disadvantage and the chickens would benefit.

You keep obsessing with the relative size of our country compared with those we are trading with, ignoring two important facts.

1. Those countries want to export to us.

2. We are not going to accept anything other than trade deals that are acceptable to the UK.

Fortunately, we are now in the hands of a healthy Conservative Government that actually knows what it's doing in this area.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I didn’t dismiss the idea of the US as a trading partner, just pointed out the obvious that they will be in a stronger negotiating position - you seem to regard this statement as negative, whilst I view it as realistic.

You also seem to think it’s a one way street, and that we have all the negotiating strengths with other countries- I hope you’re right, but I doubt it; they’re not going to accept anything other than trade deals which benefit them.

Still waiting for you to tell exactly what goods and services we are going to export to the USA, China, and India that will make up for 44% of our exports to the EU (around £350 billion)...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

So what exactly does "level playing field" mean, and who controls and sets the "field"? If the UK wants to implement a change that helps and assists business, do the EU have to follow suit or would we be prevented from doing it in the first place? Take a wild guess.:rolleyes: Does the EU insist on that for trade deals with other countries, eg Vietnam?
EU-Vietnam trade deal

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

Why does everything have to be about strength?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Because in trade negotiations, it’s a major factor.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

So everything about the EU is based upon bullying weaker countries?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I don't have to, because once again (sigh) I have to remind you that we will still be trading with the EU after Brexit, so much, if not all of that 44% of exports will still exist. To read your posts, anyone would think that we were shutting up shop altogether with the EU, which is just ludicrous and fanciful. If the economists have been making the same assumptions as you have, no wonder their forecasts are pessimistic!

Obviously, the more powerful the country, the more clout they have, but we are one of the world's largest economies, a fact you dismiss as though it had no importance. You also imply that the UK would accept a trade deal that would be bad for us. Why would we do that?

I knew you were a pessimist, Hugh, but now I'm beginning to worry about you!

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

Strength comes into it, but it's about satisfying mutual interests.

We are pretty strong actually.

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

Nail on head! A 'level playing field' should only be about meeting EU specifications relating to standards.

Equality of employment laws, etc, should not apply to us once we are out of the prison that is the EU.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Of course we won’t agree to a level playing field, and of course the EU is concerned about that.

So many EU regulations are finely wrought compromises that try to account for various sectoral interests in different member states. The rules are pitched as “harmonisation” but all too often what that really means is that a powerful interest in one country is being undercut by a smaller, nimbler business somewhere else. Lo and behold, along comes the EU with regulations that “harmonise” the market in the direction of standards big businesses have the resources to meet, but erode the competitiveness of smaller ones.

GDPR is a classic recent case in point. The administrative burden even on small charities is absurd. What it’s doing to small businesses that don’t have their own compliance departments and in-house lawyers I can only guess. The attempt to ban olive oil at table in non-factory sealed bottles is another, that threatened to put a host of small producers out of business. Thankfully the EU did a rare u-turn in that instance, but the loud squeals from the trade association for producers who sell their olive oil only in factory-sealed bottles tells you all you need to know about how far this really had anything to do with consumer protection.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Agreed. This is one of the principal reasons I wanted to leave. Slowly but surely, the EU is strangling business and innovation.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It is one of the reasons why the “old Left” of British politics (including Jeremy Corbyn, God rest his political soul) is Eurosceptic. The EU exists to regulate, and market regulations harmonised across such a large international zone will always favour large transnational businesses.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Got some bad news about GPDR, it probably isn't going away - http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedP...nical_Note.pdf

GPDR is a pain but it is all about protecting our personal data. It's actually a huge benefit for multinational companies as there was a hodgepodge of different regulations across Europe before which made offshoring data a real pain. For example, my companies HR data was backed up in the US apart from data from Belgium and Germany. GPDR and the 'Adequacy framework' in GPDR let all data be centralised.

I understand that there is a burden for small business. However, how do you decide what small businesses, if any should GPDR apply to? Should it apply to a plumber with three employees? Maybe not. Should it apply to a lawyer writing wills as a sole trader? Probably yes.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I wouldn’t have expected it to go away, not any time soon anyway. The principle that we can diverge from EU market rules where we need to is what was important to achieve, most especially for the vast majority of small, British businesses that never export to other EU countries, and for whom compliance with EU regulations is an unnecessary financial burden. It will take years to unpick, but at least we can do it now.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

So Ireland is getting half a billion of funding to link to the French energy network by passing Britain, weren't we told this was project fear and would never happen, be intetesting to see what else comes to pass...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Divergence really depends on what trade deal we strike with the EU. The more trade with the EU you want, the less divergence you can get.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Plans started in July 2016, although feasibility studies started the year before(April 2015 ie before the referendum). Won't be finished before 2025, so Brexit irrelevant.

Link

France has a large surplus of energy, courtesy of nuclear power and exports it to the UK amongst others.
Link
Connections to the UK will still be there.
Link



---------- Post added at 11:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

"level playing field" is very different to product standards. In no way would other countries submit to an EU defined and imposed "level playing field". Does China have a "level playing field" with the EU?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I'm not sure what point you're making. China does not have a close free trade deal or level playing field with the EU.
Countries like Norway that do wish for a close deal with the EU, do.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

In ranking, yes - in comparison to the EU, China, and the USA, no.

As I stated previously, we are 1/7th of the GDP of the EU, around 1/6th of the USA, and 1/8th of China - recently, China and the USA have not been shy to use tariffs to show their trading power, so why do we think we would be exempt from this?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Paging wonderful Goon type show

Grytpype:
Well, Admiral Fred, the garrison at Burami Oasis is under constant siege.

Seagoon:
Aohoo?

Grytpype:
Now there’s only one way to deal with these turban devils of bran, we’re... Wait a minute, wait for it... [suddenly over-dramatic] We're going to send a GUNBOAT!

FX:
[Thunderous cheers, leading into "Land of Hope and Glory"]

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Even the EU countries don't have a full "level playing field" with each other. Do countries like Vietnam, Turkey, Japan, Mexico etc have a "level playing field" with Germany?:confused:

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Possibly confused because you didn't see the word "close"? A free trade deal is not binary.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

There is no problem in my book with legislation that protects personal data, but as usual, the EU makes that legislation so complicated and work intensive for all organisations, that it has proved a huge pain for businesses, particularly the smaller ones.

Why could they not simply set out the standards required rather than have each company write out specifically how they were going to comply with it? Instead of having everything set out clearly in the legislation, every company has had to replicate the same process. Do they think organisations have nothing better to do?

Hopefully, the UK will draft a law which is better understood and does not require so much bureaucracy once we leave the EU. We can surely achieve the objectives of the GDPR without taking the EU sledgehammer to crack the data protection nut.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Brexit means no longer being run by unelected bureaucrats.

Meanwhile, Downing Street says Nicky Morgan has been made a life peer and will keep her role as Culture Secretary.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Oh noes, there are government ministers in the Lords, hold the front page ...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Oh noes, one of the war cries for Leave was "no unelected bureaucrats telling us what to do!"

But you knew that...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Government peers are ...

Appointed by the British PM;
Accountable in the British parliament via the Lords chamber and Commons select committee;
Accountable in the British cabinet;
Lose their job if the PM’s party is voted out by the British electorate.

Apparent similarity to EU officials is tangential at best.

But you knew that.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Get a sense of proportion, man! :D

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I would tend to agree, not on what you’re bleating about, as you’re just bleating.

But on the second chamber and how it is appointed.

I don’t the Lords, I understand the argument on how it isn’t beholden to the electorate and therefore has some immunity to the ebb and flow of public opinion and can therefore carry out it’s checks and balances with impunity.

But I dislike how it is basically a retirement and pension plan for already well heeled MPs and business men.

I think you should be called to do it, for 1 term, like jury duty. not all of them but a large proportion, I know that would impact people working, but it’s not a full time job, you could do a few days a month. Some Lords never ever darken the chamber.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

One tends not to notice after 3 + years of it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Their Lordship's aren't paid (directly) either. And being safe from "dismissal" means that they can be "unpopular" and do the job properly and see it through even when governments change.

I guess that once upon a time a peer who really went against the rule of law would be "retired" permanently. Now that would be an incentive to behave :P

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9248611.html

Looks like the lies have started to unravel already, and nobody is surprised...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

So they're not enshrined in law at the moment?:rolleyes:

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Laws that can be abolished post Brexit. Still i'm sure the workers know what they voted for !

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

From your quote, "government watered down a promise to enshrine them in law.". They are already enshrined in law, so no promise required. If the government change them then that is their right, just as it would've been Corbyn's right to change them if he had won.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I'll try and explain slowly....

1. We have workers rights (protected by the EU).
   
2. Post Brexit we can change these laws, workers no longer have that protection.
   
3. Given the concerns from MPs prior to the election Bozza said he would continue with these protections, by adding them to UK law.
   
4. He's now going back on that, less than a week after the election.
   
5. He's a lying liar, which we all knew.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

1) EU directives have to be passed into law in each nation state, so whatever the EU currently says, is currently enshrined in law.
2) It is a little thing called democracy when a government is able to change or pass laws.
3) As pointed out in (1), nothing needs adding or is there to be added in the first place.
4) "Could" DOES NOT mean "Will".

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I’m struggling to see the problem here.

You appear to be hankering after the “protection” of a supra-national organisation that has the power to prevent a democratically elected government from pursuing policies the British electorate voted for.

This is one of the reasons many people voted to leave the EU. But even after having their arses handed to them last week, it seems many remainers still simply don’t get it.

Here’s the rub: from now on, if you want policies implemented in the UK, then you need to make and win a democratic case in the UK. You can no longer rely on the inertia of a pretend superstate, and the votes of foreign politicians, to do it for you.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I'm hankering after a PM that doesn't lie and that keeps his pre-election promises. However seems I won't get that in this country !

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Fortunately we have an open door policy in this country,if your not happy you can leave.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I’ll take that abrupt pivot as you not having any meaningful response to my point.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

No the lie was the main point I was making in the first place. You're the one that's trying to change the subject !

How is your nice new SNP MP btw? ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I think he’s the numpty who started wailing at Strasbourg, which is a bummer. But he’s SNP, and the majority of us have just learned to tune out their endless whining by now, so we’ll cope.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Surely Mr K's aim to find an MP who doesn't lie and keeps his pre-election promises can be found within the UK?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I wish him luck finding one;)

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

Just remind them that they aren't getting a referendum that should cheer you up;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Perhaps they'll hold a non-binding referendum, and then say it's the will of the majority/democracy... ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Well that would certainly stir the pot.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I've put the Times link in for those who subscribe.

Presumably this would also scupper moves in Brussels regarding the non-appointment of an EU comissioner for the UK. :scratch:

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I’d be quite happy for the SNP to do a Catalonia.

A referendum lacking legitimacy or legal authority is the easiest to fight - you just refuse to take part. Let it be seen for the farce that it is.

Then afterwards, while I don’t imagine the British legal system would go after SNP ministers for treason as the Spanish did in Catalonia, I do wonder whether there might be a case to answer regarding misuse of public funds.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I assume this for after the transition period as the CJEU is the ultimate arbiter of matters pertaining to EU law according to the Withdrawal Agreement. If that is the case, we won't be needing a Commissioner anyway

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Well this is in the WA so I assume it becomes active once given royal ascent.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Rhodesia did it. We didn't go after them.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

As of Feb 1st 2020, we will not be a member of the EU. It would be a bit pointless the EU complaining about not having a commissioner from the UK for such a short period of time.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Interestingly in the WA, Citizens rights in respect to EU law are covered by the CJEU until (as it stands) 2028. It will interesting how this will work

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

AFAIK the issue must stem from before the end of the transition period. EG something happens in Dec 2020, they can still pursue the matter to the CJEU.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Rhodesia was a territory of empire. Only the most unhinged Nats seriously argue that Scotland is an outpost of empire in the same way as Rhodesia, India or wherever.