Technology3 mins ago
As Good As It Gets, Surely Not
are we to hear it's all a fudge and that we remain tied to the EU, will the Brexiteers and some remainers be happy when the Prime Minister unveils the plans later on this afternoon.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Please elaborate, how can parliament approve "no deal"? That's the status quo anyway."
I don't know. I'm only going on what I've read. Like you, I'm a little bemused. A no-deal exit is far and away my preferred option (because I care more for the UK's sovereignty than whether I can take my dog to Benidorm).
“More precisely -- as I'm sure you know -- that was "a vote to leave followed by immediate A50 notification".”
No it was not. Mr Osborne said this in his “Executive Summary” to HM Treasury’s document “The immediate economic impact of leaving the EU”:
“The Treasury document published five weeks ago set out a rigorous analysis of the long-term impact of leaving. The analysis in this HM Treasury document quantifies the impact of that adjustment over the immediate period of two years following a vote to leave. A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow.”
A clear statement that the document focuses on “…the immediate period of two years following a vote to leave.”. Not two years after triggering A50. In fact no mention of A50 at all, but the two years following a vote to leave. He may well have meant the two years notice period from A50 but he didn’t say so and it was clear what impression he was trying to portray.
“No deal means a vacuum of rules,…”
No it doesn’t.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (which received Royal Assent last June) provides for repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and for Parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement being negotiated between HM Government and the European Union. It also provides for legal continuity by enabling the transposition of already-existing EU law into UK law and so create, in domestic law, “retained EU law". This can be retained or ditched at Westminster’s discretion.
A somewhat unrelated aspect that troubles me is this: Ministers were wheeled in to No 10 one by one last night to be lectured by the Headmistress. They were provided with a copy of the “deal” (500 pages) which they could study before their “interview” but they were not allowed to take a copy with them to study before today’s Cabinet Meeting (at which they were expected to express their support for the document. This raises two questions: 1. How can anybody be expected to discuss the merits of a 500 page document of national importance which they have been allowed to study for only a few minutes? 2. Why does Mrs May not trust her Ministers to take a copy away with them?
I don't know. I'm only going on what I've read. Like you, I'm a little bemused. A no-deal exit is far and away my preferred option (because I care more for the UK's sovereignty than whether I can take my dog to Benidorm).
“More precisely -- as I'm sure you know -- that was "a vote to leave followed by immediate A50 notification".”
No it was not. Mr Osborne said this in his “Executive Summary” to HM Treasury’s document “The immediate economic impact of leaving the EU”:
“The Treasury document published five weeks ago set out a rigorous analysis of the long-term impact of leaving. The analysis in this HM Treasury document quantifies the impact of that adjustment over the immediate period of two years following a vote to leave. A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow.”
A clear statement that the document focuses on “…the immediate period of two years following a vote to leave.”. Not two years after triggering A50. In fact no mention of A50 at all, but the two years following a vote to leave. He may well have meant the two years notice period from A50 but he didn’t say so and it was clear what impression he was trying to portray.
“No deal means a vacuum of rules,…”
No it doesn’t.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (which received Royal Assent last June) provides for repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and for Parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement being negotiated between HM Government and the European Union. It also provides for legal continuity by enabling the transposition of already-existing EU law into UK law and so create, in domestic law, “retained EU law". This can be retained or ditched at Westminster’s discretion.
A somewhat unrelated aspect that troubles me is this: Ministers were wheeled in to No 10 one by one last night to be lectured by the Headmistress. They were provided with a copy of the “deal” (500 pages) which they could study before their “interview” but they were not allowed to take a copy with them to study before today’s Cabinet Meeting (at which they were expected to express their support for the document. This raises two questions: 1. How can anybody be expected to discuss the merits of a 500 page document of national importance which they have been allowed to study for only a few minutes? 2. Why does Mrs May not trust her Ministers to take a copy away with them?
“Strange dichotomy of interests isn't there. Leave voters are happy for the very people who they're criticising to have total control over us. Go figure!”
Not strange at all. The UK electorate has a modicum of control over its politicians (however imperfect that control may be). If it did not Mrs May would have signed up to an agreement that splits the UK down the Irish Sea (if she advanced the leaving process at all, that is). They have no such control over the alternative, which is unelected foreign civil servants.
Not strange at all. The UK electorate has a modicum of control over its politicians (however imperfect that control may be). If it did not Mrs May would have signed up to an agreement that splits the UK down the Irish Sea (if she advanced the leaving process at all, that is). They have no such control over the alternative, which is unelected foreign civil servants.
I've pointed out many times before that you've misunderstood the economic analysis, but the fact is that the assumption was always, as Cameron had promised, that A50 would be signed immediately on the Leave vote. That this was legally impossible was, of course, not something he cared to mention, but that doesn't change the point. No deal is economically damaging, as everybody accepts and everybody knows. This is why May has foisted such a rotten deal on us, because she had no choice if she wanted to honour the referendum on the available timescale.
As to whether or not we'll stay, it against come down to the referendum result. The correct way to honour that result is to try, earnestly, to implement its decision. Only when it becomes clear that doing so is disastrous and unacceptable could it become palatable to Remain after all.
This afternoon, apparently, will be very important. Hard not to stare.
As to whether or not we'll stay, it against come down to the referendum result. The correct way to honour that result is to try, earnestly, to implement its decision. Only when it becomes clear that doing so is disastrous and unacceptable could it become palatable to Remain after all.
This afternoon, apparently, will be very important. Hard not to stare.
"...usually if something doesnt work - er you DO discard it ...."
It depends, Peter. If there is a suitable alternative you may think about ditching it. If there isn't you need to repair it. I happen to believe that ceding the UK's sovereignty to a bunch of unelected foreigners is not a suitable alternative.
It depends, Peter. If there is a suitable alternative you may think about ditching it. If there isn't you need to repair it. I happen to believe that ceding the UK's sovereignty to a bunch of unelected foreigners is not a suitable alternative.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
