- Location
- Scottish Highlands
The opposite, I’d say. If not, the odds for 2nd Ref and stay would have been high.
No Deal Brexit
- Thread starter cattleman123
- Start date
The opposite, I’d say. If not, the odds for 2nd Ref and stay would have been high.
Bomber_Harris
Member
- Location
- London
the 7/4 against there being a no-deal on 29/3/19 is the interesting one for me because it more or less aligns with the financial markets especially the GBP - EURO exchange rate. The markets are expecting *something* to happen between now and 29/3/19 and I think that *something* is an extension to Article 50
- Location
- Limousin
Juncker did say this week that an extension would not be a problem and the 27 would agree, even beyond the EU elections.
caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
I really do hope it comes to that, with the proviso that they will appoint UK MEP's, instead of allowing us to elect our own.
Proper job.
Oh right , but opening the withdrawl act is impossible ... how convenient ..Mrs May might just surprise a few .
- Location
- Limousin
The UK would have to have elections for MEP's even if they only sat for a few weeks. If they didn't, any law or directive approved by the EU Parliament could be challenged as undemocratic.
- Location
- Limousin
But why do you want to reopen it ? It was signed off by all the parties in good faith last December.
Because it's wrong , Mrs May was called at 4am to attend a meeting in Brussels .... surely that's a case for the European human rights court .
- Location
- Limousin
Ha, ha, they are cunning these foreigners. Managing to turn Brexit to their advantage by one well timed phone call.
caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
Quite right too.
But it has been mooted, that the EU powers that be, may just do as I've said.
Could be our ace card.
Ha, ha, they are cunning these foreigners. Managing to turn Brexit to their advantage by one well timed phone call.
Yes it was a cunning stunt , or something like that .
- Location
- Limousin
Why? If the UK continues to play silly buggers they could just say FO out before the election.
caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
- Location
- Limousin, France
- Location
- Bay of Plenty NZ
Because out means out.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
John Redwoods blog today. takes a few minutes to read but I found it interesting.
Why the Withdrawal Agreement is bad for the UK
By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: FEBRUARY 25, 2019
I have been asked to spell out more details on the features of the WA other than the Irish backstop which make it a bad deal.
The first point is it contradicts the Conservative Manifesto and 2017 government policy of negotiating the Withdrawal issues and the future partnership together. You must stick to this to get leverage from concessions made on Withdrawal to benefits in the future partnership. Nothing should be agreed until everything is agreed. It is why we have got a bad Withdrawal Agreement, and are being set up to get a bad future partnership as well.
The second is the provision to pay them very large sums of money, stretching for many years into the future. No sensible person would sign an agreement which allows one side to send bill after bill for years after we have left, claiming we owe them money under many general heads set out in the Withdrawal Agreement. The Treasury estimate of £39bn is likely to be far too low. Some of the future liabilities stretch forward a hundred years, relating to payments to people not yet born who might come here before the end of the transition period. Paying to belong until 2020 opens up more future commitments under the 2019-20 budget, with liabilities until 2028. The settlement on the European Investment Bank is mean to the UK. Every conceivable future liability for the EU is recorded with as much liability as possible attaching to the UK under various clauses.
The third is the institutional architecture for the Agreement. Until we do leave the UK faces the full panoply of existing and additional EU law enforced by the EU’s own court. The UK in transition will have no veto over big new advances in EU controls, and no ability to form qualified minority blocking groups to stop an unfavourable law passing under qualified majority provisions. The EU would be at liberty to legislate in ways that harmed our economic interests and helped theirs and we would have to comply. We would even not be able to prevent the imposition of new taxes on us.
Disputes over the money or over the laws fall to be resolved by a joint committee. In the event of there being no resolution, an independent Arbitration panel decides the matter. However, if at issue is the interpretation of EU law – which is likely in most cases – that is settled by the European Court of Justice who instruct the Arbitration Panel what to say! Who ever thought the UK should accept such a one sided arrangement?
The fourth is the State Aids provisions and applicability of Competition law. This will give the EU the right to authorise state aids to attract business away from the UK, with the right to block us doing the same back.
The fifth is the continuing influence the EU will have over our welfare and benefits system.
There are many other features of this Agreement which are one sided, as it is a thorough piece of work by the EU determined to take as much of our money as possible for as long as possible, and keen to keep as much legal control over us as possible.
The Agreement does not even live up to its name and billing. It is meant to just be about the past and so called withdrawal costs and issues, yet a big chunk of it including the Irish backstop, protected trade names and other issues is about the future trading arrangements and partnership. The UK negotiators should have pointed this out and insisted on dealing with all the future issues at the same time, as the government promised to do in 2016-17
Why the Withdrawal Agreement is bad for the UK
By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: FEBRUARY 25, 2019
I have been asked to spell out more details on the features of the WA other than the Irish backstop which make it a bad deal.
The first point is it contradicts the Conservative Manifesto and 2017 government policy of negotiating the Withdrawal issues and the future partnership together. You must stick to this to get leverage from concessions made on Withdrawal to benefits in the future partnership. Nothing should be agreed until everything is agreed. It is why we have got a bad Withdrawal Agreement, and are being set up to get a bad future partnership as well.
The second is the provision to pay them very large sums of money, stretching for many years into the future. No sensible person would sign an agreement which allows one side to send bill after bill for years after we have left, claiming we owe them money under many general heads set out in the Withdrawal Agreement. The Treasury estimate of £39bn is likely to be far too low. Some of the future liabilities stretch forward a hundred years, relating to payments to people not yet born who might come here before the end of the transition period. Paying to belong until 2020 opens up more future commitments under the 2019-20 budget, with liabilities until 2028. The settlement on the European Investment Bank is mean to the UK. Every conceivable future liability for the EU is recorded with as much liability as possible attaching to the UK under various clauses.
The third is the institutional architecture for the Agreement. Until we do leave the UK faces the full panoply of existing and additional EU law enforced by the EU’s own court. The UK in transition will have no veto over big new advances in EU controls, and no ability to form qualified minority blocking groups to stop an unfavourable law passing under qualified majority provisions. The EU would be at liberty to legislate in ways that harmed our economic interests and helped theirs and we would have to comply. We would even not be able to prevent the imposition of new taxes on us.
Disputes over the money or over the laws fall to be resolved by a joint committee. In the event of there being no resolution, an independent Arbitration panel decides the matter. However, if at issue is the interpretation of EU law – which is likely in most cases – that is settled by the European Court of Justice who instruct the Arbitration Panel what to say! Who ever thought the UK should accept such a one sided arrangement?
The fourth is the State Aids provisions and applicability of Competition law. This will give the EU the right to authorise state aids to attract business away from the UK, with the right to block us doing the same back.
The fifth is the continuing influence the EU will have over our welfare and benefits system.
There are many other features of this Agreement which are one sided, as it is a thorough piece of work by the EU determined to take as much of our money as possible for as long as possible, and keen to keep as much legal control over us as possible.
The Agreement does not even live up to its name and billing. It is meant to just be about the past and so called withdrawal costs and issues, yet a big chunk of it including the Irish backstop, protected trade names and other issues is about the future trading arrangements and partnership. The UK negotiators should have pointed this out and insisted on dealing with all the future issues at the same time, as the government promised to do in 2016-17
he don't make it sound good for the UK
perhaps a clean break would be best then see what can be worked out afterwards
well she is still there up to now [not that I have seen the news this morning] lots of folk including on here thought she would be gone long ago
"
Ministers are planning a “hardship fund” for Britons impoverished by a no-deal Brexit.
A leaked document from the cabinet committee dedicated to preparing for a chaotic rupture with the European Union reveals the extraordinary scenarios being prepared for in Whitehall.
Other measures under consideration include using “tax and benefits policy” to offset rises in the cost of living, protection for parts of the country “geographically vulnerable” to food shortages and sourcing alternative food for schools, prisons and hospitals." The Times
I can almost smell the sovereignty, can't you?'
Ministers are planning a “hardship fund” for Britons impoverished by a no-deal Brexit.
A leaked document from the cabinet committee dedicated to preparing for a chaotic rupture with the European Union reveals the extraordinary scenarios being prepared for in Whitehall.
Other measures under consideration include using “tax and benefits policy” to offset rises in the cost of living, protection for parts of the country “geographically vulnerable” to food shortages and sourcing alternative food for schools, prisons and hospitals." The Times
I can almost smell the sovereignty, can't you?'