Brexit - The UK's EU Referendum & Withdrawal

[zanahoria]

…all no deal would have done was even up the trade between the two in regards to imports. the UK was always going to have to import into the country irrespective of point of origin, The EU was fearful of this as it would quite possible put EU products at a disadvantage compared to the price advantage from other third nations, you only have to look at the trade imbalance between the UK/EU. I think trade negotiations with other nations would have been handled a lot faster and with no deal the US would have been in a better position than the EU to take advantage

So if that’s the case, why didn’t Johnson go for no deal? Did he miss the points you have made or did he consider them and conclude differently - ie that “no deal” was an unacceptable cost? With his majority in parliament and a ruthless purge of the few EU sympathetic conservative MPs, he could do anything he pleased.

I think the reality is that the UK government is unlikely to countenance ripping up the treaty that it has just signed with the EU (let’s not forget the glowing terms in which the deal was praised by Frost and Johnson). Triggering article 16 on the other hand is a stronger possibility.

Let’s see.

[jedibeeftrix]

The word(s) you are looking for are "The Benn Act":
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-was-the-benn-act/

[R686]

The word you are looking for is “sequencing".

Johnson still signed it. If he didn’t like like it, he should have walked away and gone for “no deal”. Why didn’t he do that and achieve complete “sovereignty”?

The Benn Act put a stop to that,

From my point of view at the time Johnson only had one chance for no deal and that was at the very start of his Prime Ministership riding high after the election.

With Parliament voting 3 times against the Withdrawal agreement, it should have been placed in the garbage bin where it belonged.

Under A50 there was no legal requirement to a withdrawal agreement and from my point of view the only item in a withdrawal agreement should have been the financial aspect , all other agreements should have been negotiated after the fact

Also in regards to sovereignty the UK is now except for NI 100% sovereign, whenever some exports to another country they have to follow the rules of the nation, it’s no different from Australia exporting to the EU the have to follow the rules just as the EU nations have to follow Australian rules

[zanahoria]

From my point of view at the time Johnson only had one chance for no deal and that was at the very start of his Prime Ministership riding high after the election.

Why wouldn’t the Benn Act have put a stop to that?

Is it because no parliament is bound by the decisions of another parliament and, riding high with a new 80 seat majority, Johnson could easily have created new legislation to overturn the Benn Act? Or do you mean it would have been the best time to rip up the treaty with the EU?

In which case, could Johnson have started to put in motion the process for no deal any time after the 31st of January 2020?

[R686]

From my point of view at the time Johnson only had one chance for no deal and that was at the very start of his Prime Ministership riding high after the election.

Why wouldn’t the Benn Act have put a stop to that?

Is it because no parliament is bound by the decisions of another parliament and, riding high with a new 80 seat majority, Johnson could easily have created new legislation to overturn the Benn Act? Or do you mean it would have been the best time to rip up the treaty with the EU?

In which case, could Johnson have started to put in motion the process for no deal any time after the 31st of January 2020?

If I remember the timeline correctly the Benn Act was passed before and the new agreement agreed to before his election victory, but I can just imagine the howls of anger if after Boris agreed to the new deal and didn't follow through it definitely would have implications on third nation agreements in the future

[ArmChairCivvy]

if after Boris agreed to the new deal and didn't follow through it definitely would have implications on third nation agreements in the future

You say!

[R686]

if after Boris agreed to the new deal and didn't follow through it definitely would have implications on third nation agreements in the future

You say!

I know sarcasm,

But it only stands to reason, the only way Johnson could have got the numbers to call an election was to enter into a bad deal with the EU, it was either that or continual extensions into the never never or revoke A50

Johnson was between a rock and a hard place, but he actually had one other option after his election victory he could have held a referendum on whether to accept the deal or no deal, but that also had risks attached

[Repulse]

But it only stands to reason, the only way Johnson could have got the numbers to call an election was to enter into a bad deal with the EU, it was either that or continual extensions into the never never or revoke A50

Johnson was between a rock and a hard place, but he actually had one other option after his election victory he could have held a referendum on whether to accept the deal or no deal, but that also had risks attached

Another referendum would have made things worse - there was no chance for the country (at that time) voting for "no-deal"; the politics was against it and also the country was not prepared for it. Also, that would have likely then lead to calls for a 2nd "in-out" referendum, leading to a never ending cycle of votes and counter votes further damaging the country.

It is easy to blame Boris Johnson, but I would say equal if not more blame should go to David Cameron (who left a vacuum of what to do next) and Theresa May and all the other elite MPs / Civil Servants who could not put country before ideology. It feels that at the time that outside of the Spartans and other Brexit supporting MPs the rest of the establishment truly believed that they were "citizens of the world" and that delivering on a referendum result was beneath them.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Johnson was between a rock and a hard place

... and where is he now? Even though he likes to be in 'the office'

there was no chance for the country (at that time) voting for "no-deal"

and it looks like we are headed that way, again (fire this 'Lord' who actually threatened to resign if not given a bigger brief... what a missed opportunity there )

a 2nd "in-out" referendum, leading to a never ending cycle of votes and counter votes further damaging the country.

true, we have evidence from 'North of the "border" [']

would say equal if not more blame should go to David Cameron (who left a vacuum of what to do next)

That was his trade mark; just think of Libya. What dearth of talent when one congress speech makes you PM??

[jedibeeftrix]

Some useful history:

[SW1]

I think a lot are missing the point. The EU claims it must protect the single market thats why it must have these checks in place. It should really explain why Asda, Sainsburys and Tesco delivering stock from there distribution centres in the mainland to their stores in NI damages the single market, they need to explain why people in Northern Ireland trying to order things online from retailers in mainland uk but not being allowed are damaging the single market.

If suddenly there is 3000% increase in bulk load and stena is putting a dozen extra ships on the Liverpool and Cairnryan routes to belfast and then on Dublin and Holyhead services to the continent they may have point but it might be pretty well telegraphed.

If protecting the single market is really there goal then simple have the checks they had previously at the boarder for things like live animals for NI and instruct that produce coming out of GB destined for the continent or Southern Ireland has to go thru Dublin.

[zanahoria]

…they need to explain why people in Northern Ireland trying to order things online from retailers in mainland uk but not being allowed are damaging the single market.

Being bigger (than the UK), perhaps they don’t feel they have to explain anything.

[SW1]

…they need to explain why people in Northern Ireland trying to order things online from retailers in mainland uk but not being allowed are damaging the single market.

Being bigger (than the UK), perhaps they don’t feel they have to explain anything.

They can be as big as they like! But they claim to be interested in ensure the good Friday agreement remains and keeping the peace if not the simple forget the pretence and let them put there border for goods on the border with the south of Ireland

[zanahoria]

forget the pretence and let them put there border for goods on the border with the south of Ireland

PM Johnson obligingly signed an international agreement which put the customs border in the Irish Sea, so he’ll have to break the UK’s word on that one…unless the EU suddenly decides to adopt your proposal. Of course they won’t do that because the UK has very little (zero?) leverage.

Even with the Benn Act, it seems that no deal was still a possibility:

“Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer - who campaigned against Brexit - said his party would vote for the deal in the Commons, ensuring it will pass.
He said it was "a thin agreement" that "does not provide adequate protections" for jobs, manufacturing, financial services or workplace rights and "is not the deal the government promised".
But with no time left to renegotiate, the only choice was between "this deal or no deal," he added.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55435930

[ArmChairCivvy]

not the deal the government promised".
But with no time left to renegotiate, the only choice was between "this deal or no deal," he added.”

Round 2 (or is anyone counting, anymore ):
"Lord Jay of Ewelme, chairman of the House of Lords sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, said a triggering of Article 16 risks resetting negotiations and could result in a no-deal Brexit."
- from Skynews of today

[TheLoneRanger]

The core issue is the arrogance of the EU that insists that a trading framework called the "Single Market" is more important that the Belfast Agreement, that the Single Market is more important than the constitutional order of the UK .... and the threat the EU makes is that it will vioilate both to protect a "trading arrangement" by forcing a border on the Island of Ireland to protect a trading framework - not a country but a f------ trading arrangement.

We are in the position we are in now because we have fifth columnist turncoat traitors in our country who have more loyality to the EU then they have to the country of their birth and it was those same individuals who helped create the Benn Act. It is now those same individuals who sit and laugh at the UK and the problems that are being caused by the NIP with the simple explanation of well - you signed up to it.

The NIP is an agreement - and like all agreements - if it is not working - then you have to have the maturity to sit down and resolve the issues - and if that means the basic assumptions about the goals are incorrect - then you start again by throwing away the entire NIP - then so be it ...

We are having problems with the NIP because the NIP was never designed to protect the Belfast Agreement, and that must be obvious to the most intellectually challenged remoaners by now..

In this respect - the twitter by Tom McTague is correct - bang on.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now there is a need to count points between that 'Tom' on Twitter vs. the Hse of Lords committee, as the
"Commons Select Committee
The Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union ceased to exist on 16 January 2021. The Committee is no longer operating"
... and I wonder why that is

Some media outfit just counted that the current PM has more than circumvented the Earth, in his trave/ails not to answer difficult questions that - sort of - relate to the office he is holding
... send in someone else, so there is no video/ quotes library to hold against what he might be saying next?

Some still believe him, I'm sure

[sunstersun]

Rejoin the EU.

[Caribbean]

The problem with the whole "unification of Europe" project was that it was a 100-year project, run by people that wanted to complete it within their own lifetime, so that they could bask in the glory.

A creditable objective ruined by ego and personal ambition

[ArmChairCivvy]

a 100-year project

Agree with all of that, and if you count from 25 March 1957 to Horizon (no, it is not a ship ) 1992, then the project was on track until then, a third-of the way through
- to the rest, the @Caribbean comment applies
- luckily the WEU was hived off (merged into NATO) so that the two different aspects can be handled by means of differing memberships

[jedibeeftrix]

Agree with all of that, and if you count from 25 March 1957 to Horizon (no, it is not a ship ) 1992, then the project was on track until then, a third-of the way through

My argument.
The wheels started falling off the bus with Maastricht, and formally fell off the bus when Blair threw away the Maastricht opt-outs from the Social Chapter in 1998 (even if it took another decade for people to appreciate the impact of this loss).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Up to Maastrict, we were thinking the same... it was the next bus stop. And as the bus was pulling out, the wheels fell off?

Not quite, but many things confounded, one of them being the admission of new members in a hurry: a strategic deal, at the insistence of the US... which coincided with the change in the 'not an inch doctrine' that Bill & Boris had been getting aligned with. That was before the US primaries intervened (OK, from here not a topic for Brexit anymore)
- but now the good ol' two-speed Europe is not an option anymore. With the UK as a 'broken wheel' and the Club Med (save for Spain and Portugal) still trying the Baron von Munchausen trick of saving themselves from a swamp of debt by pulling up on their own hair...

Not to mention the governance models where Poland , Hungary and Slovenia are aping Putin's methods of going about (wrecking )it
- the first time I say it: perhaps it is good that we are not part of it. Folks on here keep saying the economics (the price as in the standard of living) do not matter - I would not say that! But then again, some of us can decamp; if anyone noticed, the (Brexit) billionaires did that before the fact

[sunstersun]

Lol, people actually thinking Brexit is a good idea. UK has a lot more power in the EU than out of it.

Pls don't succumb to the dumb disease infecting America. Trump and Brexit are one in the same shoe of train thought.

[R686]

Lol, people actually thinking Brexit is a good idea. UK has a lot more power in the EU than out of it.

Pls don't succumb to the dumb disease infecting America. Trump and Brexit are one in the same shoe of train thought.

I find this quite strange in regards to Brexit and the EU, would you be happy for the USA to join the European Union. I know I would not be happy for Australia to join it as it currently stands

But I do understand the benefits of its original concept under the old European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) not so much the ever closer union but the easier trade movements

[sunstersun]

Lol, people actually thinking Brexit is a good idea. UK has a lot more power in the EU than out of it.

Pls don't succumb to the dumb disease infecting America. Trump and Brexit are one in the same shoe of train thought.

I find this quite strange in regards to Brexit and the EU, would you be happy for the USA to join the European Union. I know I would not be happy for Australia to join it as it currently stands

But I do understand the benefits of its original concept under the old European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) not so much the ever closer union but the easier trade movements

Ok but we're not European, UK is.

Why would a closer union scare you? Over here in the USA the biggest fear is disunion lol.

Europe is economically the size of USA, but politically probably 1/4th as strong. Why cause it's a bunch of different countries. Imagine how much weaker the USA would be if every state was independent lol.