-
• #20101
Dammit
-
Article 50 should never have been triggered by the UK government.
They should have negotiated alternative trade arrangements and forced the EU to trigger it.The point of Article 50 was to allow the EU to remove states it no longer wanted to be part of the union, not the other way around.
-
The UK can’t do that without ripping up its international treaty obligations.
Of course, we could renege on these, but it’s not a great way to start our new existence- international pariah.
Also, the US is unlikely (as in, they’ve said they won’t) sign a trade deal with us if we fuck the Irish, which your course of action would do.
-
There's also the matter of domestic law - as UK law is aligned with EU law American food standards are such (based on "demonstrate the harm" rather than "demonstrate that there is no harm") that if we left the law unchanged all American food arriving at our shores would be ceased and destroyed.
The FTA with the US therefore requires our own laws to be changed to follow those of America- and we don't have a say in that by the way, it's a legal requirement - and we find ourselves trying to ride two horses at once.
Like most superficially simple "lets just do this!" suggestions made in the whole Brexit process I'm afraid that it starts to fall apart when you look at the detail that underpins all "it's simple, we'll just" type ideas.
-
The other thing (and there are many things) is that to move to American food standards would also destroy the majority of animal husbandry in the UK pretty much immediately.
I imagine the rare breeds stuff would continue if they could fit to the UK market demand, but more standard stuff would find itself hopelessly uncompetitive in the UK, and abruptly facing huge tariffs if not outright banned from export.
-
Of course, we could renege on these, but it’s not a great way to start our new existence- international pariah.
@Dammit good way to ensure that any borrowing would go through the roof too. A country that's happy to ignore obligations does not make for a trustworthy one. UK debt goes from investment grade towards junk...
-
Three questions about this;
Why now? I do not believe the backers of Vote Leave don't have the funds for the appeal process.
Does the Electoral Commission have the power to force the responsible officers of Vote Leave to publicly admit culpability, under threat of something comparable to 'contempt of Court' should they refuse,
or,
does the illegal overspending have to go a further Court?
Is the timing designed to negate any leaderships bids from (at least) dePfeffel and Gove, as for the flatearth brexiteurs these two are now not considered sufficiently supportive of the desired 'No Deal' brexit? -
But you can't revoke with the intention of reinvoking simply to effect a scheduling change.
They can revoke for whatever reason they want. The point is that, having done that, they can't re-invoke A50 without good reason*.
(* If they do revoke A50 then the EU would probably only allow it to be invoked again if the UK can clearly demonstrate that it was still wanted, i.e. general election specifically based on this issue and/or another referendum with clearer definitions of what people are voting for, and that the UK had an idea of what type of Brexit they wanted prior to attempting to invoke it.
If the UK isn't allowed to reinvoke A50 ever then we're permanently stuck in the EU. So it becomes a question of when, and why, we'd reach a time when the EU would accept A50 revocation again.)
Personally I'm still clinging on to the hope that April 12th will loom with nothing going through and the Govt will be forced to revoke A50 to avoid no deal. That would probably trigger a GE and then either:-
a) It's left to party manifestos (in which case we'll be fucked again as I doubt Labour will change their position from 'respect the result of the referendum')
b) A second referendum and hopefully it's told to go awayNeither will resolve the underlying disquiet in the population.
-
So the UK parliament can put something forward that, when voted in, breaks international law and screws over an UK country?
Pretty much. It would have to live with the consequences, but it can legislate whatever it wants.
I'd see that as problematic.
It's almost as if the whole thing was an ill--conceived conceit from the start
And how are you going to even implement that?
Half arsedly? c.f. brexit as a whole
-
The UK can’t do that without ripping up its international treaty obligations.
Which would put us exactly where the US wants us to be, and where the US puts almost all of the rest of it's treaty partners - in lopsided bilateral agreements which end up benefiting a select few, mostly on the US side
Of course, we could renege on these, but it’s not a great way to start our new existence- international pariah.
Plus ca change.
-
While many Tories are free traders I am not sure that many leave voters are. Then again there is a burn the house (our) down mentality running through English poltics. The brexit leaders wanted to set the EU in fire like may resignation attempt they missed and set there own house on fire but also cut funding to the fire brigade so there no one to put it out. Trade with the USA on most things is pretty easy. Its trump's metal tarriffs that have got in the way recently. A trade deal as some one who buys direct from the us won't do much. The thing about the single market it's a common standards block. We will follow it's standards in or out. It n we have a say out we don't simple as that.
Rab has no clear position on brexit. He took a job then resigned for it to look principled so he became more well known as he has had his eyes on the leadership post may. He has had a social media campaign for this for some time. Definitely not a Tory to be trusted. There are not many to trust. Some you can trust on there views not changing until they do.
mashton
user62119
mespilus
Thuekr
duncs
Greenbank
NotThamesWater
hugo7
Scrabble
cycleclinic-
Post a reply
About
EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath
Posted by
