Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I hope this isn't the 'easiest deal in history' or we could have trouble going forward.

The summary in that link simply lists the options available from the agreements to date. It's very high level and doesn't really touch on the positions of both sides so I am sorry it didn't float your boat.

All these negotiations with the EU just illustrate that in the free market of negotiations, the UK is weaker than the EU, China, the USA and others. Despite what some leavers hope, size does matter.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46435128

The UK government may have broken Parliamentary rules by not publishing Brexit legal advice, the Commons Speaker has said.

John Bercow said "there is an arguable case" that a contempt of Parliament has been committed.

It means MPs will debate and vote on Tuesday on whether or not to refer the case to the Standards Committee.

This is likely to delay the start of the debate on Theresa May's Brexit deal.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

All these negotiations with the EU just illustrate that in the free market of negotiations, the UK is weaker than the EU, China, the USA and others. Despite what some leavers hope, size does matter.

And that is the main reason being in the EU is better than being out.

Outside the EU we are open to being flooded by cheap food, decimating our own farmers. Fishing rights are a red herring as who fishes where is dictated by 5 UK industrial fishing companies, which when they lose the ability to freely trade within the EU will tighten their grip still further.

But hey we will have control of our borders, which despite everything more people are coming here, just not from the EU so much.

No one seems to want to look at how undemocratic our governments are. They do not represent the people, just vested interest.

[1andrew1]

Stables and horses bolting come to mind!

Having campaigned to leave the EU in 2016 to let Britain to “trade more energetically” with other countries, the Oxford and Cambridge educated lawyer [Dominic Raab] confessed four weeks ago: “I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” Now, the FCA has woken up to a similar geographic reality: foreign banks can easily move their client-handling operations and management teams out of the UK ahead of Brexit — and many are doing just that...
Why is the FCA writing to CEOs only now? People familiar with its approach say this is part of an ongoing process of looking at how banks’ business plans evolve, and now — closer to Brexit — it is setting out regulatory, not political, principles. But, if this is not political, why has the “Dear CEO” letter, unlike every other missive the regulator sends out, not been published on its website?
Could it be that the number of non-EU clients being dragged out of the UK in the wider EU exodus is far higher than anyone realised? It would not be the first time someone looked at a Brexit road map and belatedly realised which way the traffic goes.

https://www.ft.com/content/46aa44e6-...6-2022a0b02a6c

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46435128

Side show and quite irrelevant to the main issue

Originally Posted by Pierre

Side show and quite irrelevant to the main issue

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46435128

If there's a vote on referring the case to the Standards Committee it could be an indication of what will happen in a week's time, when the crunch vote on Brexit is due to take place.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Side show and quite irrelevant to the main issue

It's relevant that a cabinet minister (Geoffrey Cox or David Lidington) could now be suspended for several days and therefore potentially unable to attend the Brexit vote on 11th December.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Side show and quite irrelevant to the main issue

I disagree. This is so relevant since, for many, Brexit is all about Parliamentary Sovereignty and if I understand things correctly, the Commons passed a resolution calling for full publication.

You cannot have selective Parliamentary Sovereignty. If you do, what on earth is this pantomime all about?

Looks like the EU court will rule that the UK can revoke Article 50 without the permission of the wider EU: https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...68636368715776

Unlikely to be needed but in the event of a second referendum the fact the UK may be able to simply revoke it rather than ask permission would mean , again in theory, that the EU can't impose conditions such as losing the rebate on such a decision.

[Sephiroth]

Indeed. The full opinion of the Advocate General is at https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/...cp180187en.pdf

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Looks like the EU court will rule that the UK can revoke Article 50 without the permission of the wider EU: https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...68636368715776

Unlikely to be needed but in the event of a second referendum the fact the UK may be able to simply revoke it rather than ask permission would mean , again in theory, that the EU can't impose conditions such as losing the rebate on such a decision.

Another domino falls.

---------- Post added at 08:46 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

If the U.K. parliament is intransigent to this deal, why would the EU offer an extension of A50.

To do so would imply they were willing to move their position.

Big .IF.

If such a bill failed to materialise, then my earlier analysis would be correct as no extension to A50 would be offered?

if one is on the table.

. No need for an extension in that scenario, we will have taken the gift away from the EU iand just leave.

in which case A50 would be withdrawn by us, we don’t need EU agreement for that

No, i’m afraid my interpretation is correct. If the EU offer an extension of A50 it would only be to renegotiate elements of the Withdrawal agreement. They may do it, but they have been intransigent so far, so if they did it would be the first sign of them wilting.

Or they may think that no deal is worth the display of EU unity.

Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation. It’s based on inherently flawed understandings of our constitution and the motivations of the parties involved. Then again, that’s not stopped our three Brexit secretaries getting the job.

The EU has motivation to allow an extension for any multitude of reasons. If there’s any chance of a ballot with Remain on the table a three month delay is nothing to the EU.

It doesn’t change the underlying facts for other member states. You can crash out with no deal, a poorly negotiated deal or remain in the EU. None of that materially changes with a short extension.

Indeed, potentially we can now unilaterally withdraw and manufacture a two year extension of our own.

BTW it's not a final decision. The EU take the Advocate General's opinion 80% of the time it seems.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

BTW it's not a final decision. The EU take the Advocate General's opinion 80% of the time it seems.

Post above amended to reflect this. The headlines don’t exactly reflect the current position.

It also means we could revoke it then issue it again and get another two years...

Watch as the UK succumbs to the total corruption of the EU and that it cannot really cope with the loss of one of its largest contributing members and we lose true democracy by selfish cowards trying undo the first referendum. This is not fecking freedom!!!

Some Remainers ought to be totally ashamed of themselves for selfishly abusing democracy and pissing on the graves of those who fought and died for freedom and democracy.

As I have said before. I do not recognise my EU citizenship and utterly revoke it no matter if we end up becoming a dictatorship country and Remaining. I do not want our country in the cancer ridden corrupted EU.