UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Mr K]

Getting a bit bored with all this now. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' sums up this country and Brexit. By the time we've become a down-market British version of Trump's USA, the USA will have long moved on from Trump,...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Getting a bit bored with all this now. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' sums up this country and Brexit. By the time we've become a down-market British version of Trump's USA, the USA will have long moved on from Trump,...

I’m getting bored with this point of view.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m getting bored with this point of view.

If there was a second Brexit vote, would you vote Remain or Leave?

[nomadking]

If we and the EU are "ready as we'll ever be", then the WA is not supposedly needed by anybody.

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes but which one ?

As we know, Benn Act requires Johnson to seek an extension to Brexit if parliament has not approved either a deal or leaving without a deal by October 19, however, Primary legislation still exists in the form of a different law, the European Union Withdrawal Act, states Britain will leave the EU on October 31. Which of these laws takes precedence, matters a lot.

The government has repeatedly said only that it will comply with "the law", without actually specifying which one. It may try and argue that it is following the law by taking Britain out on October 31st.

Well, the judgement specified that

In paragraph 8 of the answers lodged on behalf of the Advocate General the following averments are set out:
“... Explained and averred that the Prime Minister accepts in relation to the 2019 Act:

(a) That, subject to section 1(5), in the event that neither of the conditions set out in section 1(1) and (2) is satisfied, he will send a letter in the form set out in the schedule by no later than 19 October 2019:
section 1(3) and (4).

(b) That, subject to section 1(5), in the event that the European Council (“EC”) decides to agree to any extension for the period specified in the letter, he is obliged immediately to notify the President of the EC that the United Kingdom agrees to that extension: section 3(1).

(c) That, subject to section 1(5), in the event that the EC decides to agree to an extension until a date other than the date specified in the letter, he is obliged to notify the President of the EC within the period specified in section 3(2) that the United Kingdom agrees to that extension, this obligation being disapplied if the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion of the kind specified in section 3(3).

(d) That he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions. Thus he cannot act so as to prevent the letter requesting the specified extension in the Act from being sent.”

Mr Webster confirmed in the course of the hearing that these averments contained the first detailed public expression of the Prime Minister’s intentions with regard to the legal obligations imposed on him by the 2019 Act.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/d...7.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The judgement refers to BJ’s submission to the Court he will carry out the actions stated in the Benn Bill.

It also states

Section 5(3) states that the provisions of the Act override any statutory or other provision which would otherwise require the UK to leave the EU on any specified date.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If there was a second Brexit vote, would you vote Remain or Leave?

But what would and could any 2nd vote be about? "Deal" vs "No Deal", is still "Leave" either way. A Remain campaign would be based upon bullying and outright lies.
Eg Link

Grieve responded that the Leavers "repeatedly said we would leave with a deal and never said we would be leaving without one. It's right that David Cameron said that was a risk, I also said it was a risk, the fact is that those promoting leave did not."

As I've pointed out, the "deal" referred to in Grieve comments is one on which negotiations haven't even started. We wouldn't be leaving without a "deal", in his sense of the word. We can't leave with one. If anything, agreeing to the WA blocks any future deal, as it locks us in with the backstop. Nothing further that the EU will agree to, as they wouldn't need to.

---------- Post added at 21:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, the judgement specified that



https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/d...7.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The judgement refers to BJ’s submission to the Court he will carry out the actions stated in the Benn Bill.

It also states

But it can't override Primary Law. A Statutory Instrument is a different thing.

[jfman]

The original Withdrawal Act doesn’t mean we leave, it only transposes EU legislation into UK law and claims we aren’t signatory to a Treaty that in reality we are.

If the UK and EU agree an extension the reality is we remain. For the Government to extend (with the EU) and not amend exit day in the Act simply means we could get legal challenges. It doesn’t mean we leave on the 31st October.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If there was a second Brexit vote, would you vote Remain or Leave?

I think I’ve made my position very clear over the years.

I voted Remain, pre-referendum the EU wasn’t even on my radar. It just was what it was. I cared as much about the EU as much as I cared about my Local Authority. Not a lot.

But what I am, is a Democrat. It’s what separates us, or is supposed to, from despots, tyrants and dictators or is supposed to.

We lost, and immediately said to Mrs Pierre, this will be bad, but here we are.

What I have witnessed since the referendum result has just disgusted me, and it has turned me from a remainer to a fervent Brexiteer - and not because I believe in Brexit - but I believe we have to enact the decision that was made.

A few points, I knew what we were voting for, that’s why I voted Remain. I knew what Leave meant. My version, Based on what I was told, and read and watched, was leaving the SM, CU and jurisdiction of the ECJ ( of nearly all things, I recognised there may be some areas they could still be involved with). If it’s not those three things it’s not Brexit and not the worth trouble we’ve gone through.

So, to answer you, if there was another Ref, I would vote leave.

Another point, I am a well educated, professional person, that earns in the higher tax bracket, as does my wife. Who both voted Remain and would both now vote leave. The same can be said of my sister, and I don’t we are an isolated case.

Parliament is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The original Withdrawal Act doesn’t mean we leave, it only transposes EU legislation into UK law and claims we aren’t signatory to a Treaty that in reality we are.

We heard you the first time.

If the UK and EU agree an extension the reality is we remain.

no shit?

For the Government to extend (with the EU) and not amend exit day in the Act simply means we could get legal challenges. It doesn’t mean we leave on the 31st October.

I have no idea who you are talking to, or about.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

The original Withdrawal Act doesn’t mean we leave, it only transposes EU legislation into UK law and claims we aren’t signatory to a Treaty that in reality we are.

If the UK and EU agree an extension the reality is we remain. For the Government to extend (with the EU) and not amend exit day in the Act simply means we could get legal challenges. It doesn’t mean we leave on the 31st October.

EU directives are already in UK law, Each EU nation has to do that. The transposing of EU rules has already been done.
The WA doesn't start until after we leave.
From Explainer on WA.

3. The Withdrawal Agreement provides for:
...
c. a time-limited implementation period that provides certainty to
businesses and individuals and ensures they only have to adjust to
one set of changes in line with the future relationship with the EU;
...

15. The Bill must pass before the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 in order
for the Withdrawal Agreement to have domestic legal effect and for the Government
to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK’s future relationship with the EU, which
will not be finalised until after the UK’s exit from the EU, will be implemented as
necessary in separate legislation.
16. The Withdrawal Agreement will also be subject to the provisions of the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRaG) 2010. Following this, the treaty
will be ratified, and can enter into force.

The "extensions" constantly referred to, are the start date of the WA, not the end date. There would become a point in time where any time extensions to the WA, would mean it was no longer a transitional, unambiguously limited in time agreement, and no further extension would be legal, even under EU law.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think I’ve made my position very clear over the years.

I voted Remain, pre-referendum the EU wasn’t even on my radar. It just was what it was. I cared as much about the EU as much as I cared about my Local Authority. Not a lot.

But what I am, is a Democrat. It’s what separates us, or is supposed to, from despots, tyrants and dictators or is supposed to.

We lost, and immediately said to Mrs Pierre, this will be bad, but here we are.

What I have witnessed since the referendum result has just disgusted me, and it has turned me from a remainer to a fervent Brexiteer - and not because I believe in Brexit - but I believe we have to enact the decision that was made.

A few points, I knew what we were voting for, that’s why I voted Remain. I knew what Leave meant. My version, Based on what I was told, and read and watched, was leaving the SM, CU and jurisdiction of the ECJ ( of nearly all things, I recognised there may be some areas they could still be involved with). If it’s not those three things it’s not Brexit and not the worth trouble we’ve gone through.

So, to answer you, if there was another Ref, I would vote leave.

Another point, I am a well educated, professional person, that earns in the higher tax bracket, as does my wife. Who both voted Remain and would both now vote leave. The same can be said of my sister, and I don’t we are an isolated case.

Parliament is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

We heard you the first time.

no shit?


I have no idea who you are talking to, or about.

At least you admit you have no idea about what’s going on, I suppose. Quite refreshing honesty from a Brexiteer. I commend you for it.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The WA doesn't start until after we leave.
From Explainer on WA.
The "extensions" constantly referred to, are the start date of the WA, not the end date. There would become a point in time where any time extensions to the WA, would mean it was no longer a transitional, unambiguously limited in time agreement, and no further extension would be legal, even under EU law.

I was referring to the Withdrawl Act not the Withdrawal Agreement.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

At least you admit you have no idea about what’s going on, I suppose. Quite refreshing honesty from a Brexiteer. I commend you for it.

Well you’ll have to enlighten me where I said “ I have no idea what’s going on”

Because I didn’t say that. In fact I specifically said the contrary.

You know recent posts from you are just getting more unhinged. You need to get horizontal for a time, i’m Worried for you.

Just leave at the end of the month. No Election. Let Boris Johnson and the Tories get what they want and deal with the consequences if it's not as good as they say.

Nothing stopping us getting a closer UK-EU deal later on, after the election does happen.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Just leave at the end of the month. No Election. Let Boris Johnson and the Tories get what they want and deal with the consequences if it's not as good as they say.

Nothing stopping us getting a closer UK-EU deal later on, after the election does happen.

If you’re serious, I agree.

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

At least you admit you have no idea about what’s going on, I suppose. Quite refreshing honesty from a Brexiteer. I commend you for it.

I think I see where you are coming from now. Just to avoid confusion I was specifically talking about you. Not the issue. It’s you I have no idea about. I’m worried for you.

Originally Posted by Pierre

If you’re serious, I agree.

Well it's more of a cry of exacerbation but there is a part of me that wants Brexiters to get exactly what they're advocating for otherwise it'll be like the 'socialism has never been tried' thing. Anything less than No Deal Brexit will always be said to have been 'not proper Brexit' as a cop-out.

Of course if I am wrong and it all works out then fair play: win-win almost.

That said I am not convinced the blame if things do go wrong will not be about looking inwards but blaming others.

[1andrew1]

Are you a red tape loving anti-business Corbynista? Then a no-deal Brexit is just up your street!

Red tape bill for UK-EU trade under no-deal Brexit set to hit £15bn a year
Businesses would be hit with an annual £15bn bill for filling in customs forms for trade between the UK and the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to a British government paper published on Monday.
Companies in the UK and EU would face “a significant new and ongoing administrative burden” if Britain were to crash out of the bloc, the assessment by HM Revenue & Customs warned.

https://www.ft.com/content/30c58758-...0-3b065ef5fc55