ChatterBank23 mins ago
So It's Confirmed We Are Ready For No Deal, Even The Cbi Think We Are Not....
161 Answers
https:/
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
Answers
Ellipsis - // In the lace seller scenario, no deal means keep the status quo i.e. remain. // No, it does not mean that. What it means is, there are plenty more lace sellers in the town, and plenty more customers, and on this occasion, we are not going to deal together, maybe tomorrow we will, tomorrow is another day, but for now, I am going to look elsewhere, and so is...
15:55 Mon 29th Jul 2019
10cs "I might be wrong (probably am) but I thought it was Parliament that would make the decision" - yes they did make that decision, the European Union (notification of withdrawal act), 2017
https:/
It's already been extended twice using a statutory instrument (though the legality of that is currently being tested in court). It is primarily this act that means no deal does not need parliamentary approval and is the default.
https:/
It's already been extended twice using a statutory instrument (though the legality of that is currently being tested in court). It is primarily this act that means no deal does not need parliamentary approval and is the default.
Well, perhaps. But as you've stated, a Statutory Instrument has already been used twice to push the departure date back so that a deal could be agreed, and Parliament even gave itself the power to pass its own legislation guaranteeing the same. In that sense, yes, if Parliament sits about and does nothing then I think 31st October is Exit Day, "end of" -- but the point is that Parliament is absolutely not going to sit about and do nothing.
Right or wrong, the CBI will always highlight problems with their members not getting there. Exiting is new territory. They and their members have the same opportunity as all to anticipate possible issues and prepare. Just hope most are competent enough to have it sorted in time; else someone more alert and dynamic will grab their market share.
That's a different kind of sitting about and doing nothing. Recesses are normal, and before that there was an election for a new PM.
As to OG's post on Parliament being "forced" to allow no deal: it's firstly far from clear that "No Deal" was what the people wanted, despite the insistence from many on this site; and secondly, getting Parliament to do something specific is what General Elections are for. I still think that there's a good chance of one by, say, March 2020 at the latest.
As to OG's post on Parliament being "forced" to allow no deal: it's firstly far from clear that "No Deal" was what the people wanted, despite the insistence from many on this site; and secondly, getting Parliament to do something specific is what General Elections are for. I still think that there's a good chance of one by, say, March 2020 at the latest.
I wonder how many will now start to worry about keeping their seats too. Quite a while for them to contemplate not having a trough to stick their snout in because if they openly defy their constituents that is what will happen. They now no longer have Treasons muddy water to hide in, it will be plain to see who the quislings.
ymb, I don't think many are worried about losing their seats at the moment,
https:/
https:/
I started to read the "withdrawal" "agreement" but these things are not that attention grabbing to those unused to examing them, so like most, I allowed the experts to interpret for me and place their interpretation in the public domain. They were mostly scathing. I was particularly taken by one found in the Spectator that went through it pointing out the issues.
I think it's clear there is too much wrong with it to act as a basis for change. The NI issue (which ought not be an issue at all) being a particular sticking point. But there were trade negotiation restrictions too. It was an error trying to separate specific withdrawal demands from trade discussions in the first place. It seems to me that they should have started with an agreement over security, joint projects to continue, citizens' rights, etc. and ignored mugging attempts demanding cash for leaving and offering no evidence anything was legally owed. Then the Canadian trade agreement should have been used as a basis and expanded that to cover services and other areas as they were uncovered. As it is, time is tunning out, no shift in EU position has been seen, nor is likely, and no-deal has been all that's left for ages now.
I think it's clear there is too much wrong with it to act as a basis for change. The NI issue (which ought not be an issue at all) being a particular sticking point. But there were trade negotiation restrictions too. It was an error trying to separate specific withdrawal demands from trade discussions in the first place. It seems to me that they should have started with an agreement over security, joint projects to continue, citizens' rights, etc. and ignored mugging attempts demanding cash for leaving and offering no evidence anything was legally owed. Then the Canadian trade agreement should have been used as a basis and expanded that to cover services and other areas as they were uncovered. As it is, time is tunning out, no shift in EU position has been seen, nor is likely, and no-deal has been all that's left for ages now.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles85 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles92 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles110 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.