How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
paulrockliffe]eejRC said:
What response do you want off folks?
I strongly suspect that most remain leaving voters haven’t thought too much about it and just hoped the status quo was maintained, so that we could all just carry on as normal. Much the same as most leave voters want it done with, dont really give a f
k about the Irish border or the customs union just so long as we can just carry on as normal.
Brexit is as easy or as difficult as you wish to make it. That’s the simple truth. Even with Barnier and co being difficult and demanding it wouldn’t be the palava it is if the govt was united and had a common policy and goal. The present difficulties I would argue are caused entirely by the Tory party not having a joint collective clue. It doesn’t known if it wants a difficult or easy Brexit, it has no collective political will or direction.
/quote]
I disagree a bit with your point about the Customs Union, I'd think most voters don't care about the CU at the moment, but if we stay in it people will realise that means we haven't taken back control of our trade policy and all the other things that go with being in a Customs Union and will care then. Agree on the Irish Border, it's a wider topic than I have time for today, but I doubt there is widespread support for appeasing terrorists, which is the crux of the basic Irish border issue. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think that's where the population is largely.
The position is far more nuanced than just an internal Tory party issue though, the opposition is just as split and parliament is hugely out of step with the public and trying to position an effective remain outcome dressed up as leave. May appears to have run out of options by fking things up at every turn.
Government Policy, from April 2016 to now has been to leave both the Customs Union and the Single Market as these are the essence of what the EU is. The leave campaign won the referendum on the premise of taking back control of money, borders, trade policy and law. Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto of leaving both. Last week's local election results showed quite clearly that May is entirely reliant on leave voters.
Yet here we are with a Government that is still talking about a joint Customs policy (ie staying in the Customs Union whatever it's being called this week) when not only is there is no mandate for it, there is a specific mandate for the opposite. As a result the Lords have voted to do what they want to do with no regard to voters, and it sounds as if there's a good chance the Commons will join them and ignore the referendum result. As a result the EU will continue to agitate and push for an outcome that is essentially remain.
Essentially it looks like May cannot get agreement with the EU and cannot get any of her proposals through the Commons anyway. And the only way to solve those issues will see her destroyed at the next election, she's done nothing as PM but fk about with stupid minor policies so hasn't gained votes from anywhere and is about to alienate a good half of her core vote. She can't call an election either because she can't win on a ticket of, "I've fked Brexit up, vote for me." because Labour will say enough, as they did last time, to hold on to Labour Leave voters.
Can't see what her options are to be honest, there's no time for anything drastic, but she's going to be kicked out by the party as soon as she wavers from taking back control.
The one thing I'm not completely clear on is how binding the commons defeats would be? If the legislation says there has to be a Customs Union negotiated but the EU say no, or the only way they agree contradicts some other part of the legislation, where does that leave the Government? And I thought the Government had couldn't be bound by Parliament when negotiating international treaties?
It's all a clusterfk isn't it.
Pursuing the Customs 'partnership' which May seems to be favouring will be her demise.I strongly suspect that most remain leaving voters haven’t thought too much about it and just hoped the status quo was maintained, so that we could all just carry on as normal. Much the same as most leave voters want it done with, dont really give a f
k about the Irish border or the customs union just so long as we can just carry on as normal.Brexit is as easy or as difficult as you wish to make it. That’s the simple truth. Even with Barnier and co being difficult and demanding it wouldn’t be the palava it is if the govt was united and had a common policy and goal. The present difficulties I would argue are caused entirely by the Tory party not having a joint collective clue. It doesn’t known if it wants a difficult or easy Brexit, it has no collective political will or direction.
/quote]
I disagree a bit with your point about the Customs Union, I'd think most voters don't care about the CU at the moment, but if we stay in it people will realise that means we haven't taken back control of our trade policy and all the other things that go with being in a Customs Union and will care then. Agree on the Irish Border, it's a wider topic than I have time for today, but I doubt there is widespread support for appeasing terrorists, which is the crux of the basic Irish border issue. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think that's where the population is largely.
The position is far more nuanced than just an internal Tory party issue though, the opposition is just as split and parliament is hugely out of step with the public and trying to position an effective remain outcome dressed up as leave. May appears to have run out of options by f
king things up at every turn. Government Policy, from April 2016 to now has been to leave both the Customs Union and the Single Market as these are the essence of what the EU is. The leave campaign won the referendum on the premise of taking back control of money, borders, trade policy and law. Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto of leaving both. Last week's local election results showed quite clearly that May is entirely reliant on leave voters.
Yet here we are with a Government that is still talking about a joint Customs policy (ie staying in the Customs Union whatever it's being called this week) when not only is there is no mandate for it, there is a specific mandate for the opposite. As a result the Lords have voted to do what they want to do with no regard to voters, and it sounds as if there's a good chance the Commons will join them and ignore the referendum result. As a result the EU will continue to agitate and push for an outcome that is essentially remain.
Essentially it looks like May cannot get agreement with the EU and cannot get any of her proposals through the Commons anyway. And the only way to solve those issues will see her destroyed at the next election, she's done nothing as PM but f
k about with stupid minor policies so hasn't gained votes from anywhere and is about to alienate a good half of her core vote. She can't call an election either because she can't win on a ticket of, "I've fked Brexit up, vote for me." because Labour will say enough, as they did last time, to hold on to Labour Leave voters.Can't see what her options are to be honest, there's no time for anything drastic, but she's going to be kicked out by the party as soon as she wavers from taking back control.
The one thing I'm not completely clear on is how binding the commons defeats would be? If the legislation says there has to be a Customs Union negotiated but the EU say no, or the only way they agree contradicts some other part of the legislation, where does that leave the Government? And I thought the Government had couldn't be bound by Parliament when negotiating international treaties?
It's all a clusterf
k isn't it.I can't see May lasting more than a few months if she continues down that road, and many, many Leave voters would no doubt welcome her removal from Office.
Leaving both the Single Market and Customs union has been the headline in most of May's major speeches since she took office, and was a key stone in her Tory manifesto, which strangely the likes of Morgan, Soubry and Grieve seem to have forgotten or didn't notice when they stood on the back of the manifesto.
I'd guess many Leave voters see the Customs 'partnership' as a sell out, and such a 'partnership' certainly doesn't give what May promised, which was taking back control.
Moving forward from that I can see a GE being forced on the electorate between now and March 2019.
paulrockliffe said:
I disagree a bit with your point about the Customs Union, I'd think most voters don't care about the CU at the moment, but if we stay in it people will realise that means we haven't taken back control of our trade policy and all the other things that go with being in a Customs Union and will care then. Agree on the Irish Border, it's a wider topic than I have time for today, but I doubt there is widespread support for appeasing terrorists, which is the crux of the basic Irish border issue. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think that's where the population is largely.
The position is far more nuanced than just an internal Tory party issue though, the opposition is just as split and parliament is hugely out of step with the public and trying to position an effective remain outcome dressed up as leave. May appears to have run out of options by fking things up at every turn.
Government Policy, from April 2016 to now has been to leave both the Customs Union and the Single Market as these are the essence of what the EU is. The leave campaign won the referendum on the premise of taking back control of money, borders, trade policy and law. Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto of leaving both. Last week's local election results showed quite clearly that May is entirely reliant on leave voters.
Yet here we are with a Government that is still talking about a joint Customs policy (ie staying in the Customs Union whatever it's being called this week) when not only is there is no mandate for it, there is a specific mandate for the opposite. As a result the Lords have voted to do what they want to do with no regard to voters, and it sounds as if there's a good chance the Commons will join them and ignore the referendum result. As a result the EU will continue to agitate and push for an outcome that is essentially remain.
Essentially it looks like May cannot get agreement with the EU and cannot get any of her proposals through the Commons anyway. And the only way to solve those issues will see her destroyed at the next election, she's done nothing as PM but fk about with stupid minor policies so hasn't gained votes from anywhere and is about to alienate a good half of her core vote. She can't call an election either because she can't win on a ticket of, "I've fked Brexit up, vote for me." because Labour will say enough, as they did last time, to hold on to Labour Leave voters.
Can't see what her options are to be honest, there's no time for anything drastic, but she's going to be kicked out by the party as soon as she wavers from taking back control.
The one thing I'm not completely clear on is how binding the commons defeats would be? If the legislation says there has to be a Customs Union negotiated but the EU say no, or the only way they agree contradicts some other part of the legislation, where does that leave the Government? And I thought the Government had couldn't be bound by Parliament when negotiating international treaties?
It's all a clusterfk isn't it.
But that's not at all right. It's got nothing to do with appeasing terrorists - it's to do with fostering and developing the conditions for peace and reconciliation to take hold, and to prevent conditions developing which would lead to widespread disengagement of a section of the population from "normal" civil society. You're not appeasing terrorists, you're preventing the conditions in which they thrive from arising.The position is far more nuanced than just an internal Tory party issue though, the opposition is just as split and parliament is hugely out of step with the public and trying to position an effective remain outcome dressed up as leave. May appears to have run out of options by f
king things up at every turn. Government Policy, from April 2016 to now has been to leave both the Customs Union and the Single Market as these are the essence of what the EU is. The leave campaign won the referendum on the premise of taking back control of money, borders, trade policy and law. Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto of leaving both. Last week's local election results showed quite clearly that May is entirely reliant on leave voters.
Yet here we are with a Government that is still talking about a joint Customs policy (ie staying in the Customs Union whatever it's being called this week) when not only is there is no mandate for it, there is a specific mandate for the opposite. As a result the Lords have voted to do what they want to do with no regard to voters, and it sounds as if there's a good chance the Commons will join them and ignore the referendum result. As a result the EU will continue to agitate and push for an outcome that is essentially remain.
Essentially it looks like May cannot get agreement with the EU and cannot get any of her proposals through the Commons anyway. And the only way to solve those issues will see her destroyed at the next election, she's done nothing as PM but f
k about with stupid minor policies so hasn't gained votes from anywhere and is about to alienate a good half of her core vote. She can't call an election either because she can't win on a ticket of, "I've fked Brexit up, vote for me." because Labour will say enough, as they did last time, to hold on to Labour Leave voters.Can't see what her options are to be honest, there's no time for anything drastic, but she's going to be kicked out by the party as soon as she wavers from taking back control.
The one thing I'm not completely clear on is how binding the commons defeats would be? If the legislation says there has to be a Customs Union negotiated but the EU say no, or the only way they agree contradicts some other part of the legislation, where does that leave the Government? And I thought the Government had couldn't be bound by Parliament when negotiating international treaties?
It's all a clusterf
k isn't it.Edited by paulrockliffe on Wednesday 9th May 11:01
You got that clusterf
k dead on, though.slow_poke said:
But that's not at all right. It's got nothing to do with appeasing terrorists - it's to do with fostering and developing the conditions for peace and reconciliation to take hold, and to prevent conditions developing which would lead to widespread disengagement of a section of the population from "normal" civil society. You're not appeasing terrorists, you're preventing the conditions in which they thrive from arising.
You got that clusterfk dead on, though.
It doesn't matter whether it's right or not, my comment was on how it's viewed. It's not seen favourably by lots of people, lots of people think that if the terrorists were serious about the principle that peace was in the best interests of the communities that they should have accepted the personal costs that go with that. It's heavily tainted by attitudes to Blair as well.You got that clusterf
k dead on, though.Along with that, the border issue is being pushed as "We can't do x, y or z as some terrorists will kick off again." Again, that doesn't resonate outside of SW1, where most people think terrorists shouldn't kick off and if they do they should be dealt with properly.
As I said, not necessarily my view, but that's the reality that May has to negotiate.
paulrockliffe said:
slow_poke said:
But that's not at all right. It's got nothing to do with appeasing terrorists - it's to do with fostering and developing the conditions for peace and reconciliation to take hold, and to prevent conditions developing which would lead to widespread disengagement of a section of the population from "normal" civil society. You're not appeasing terrorists, you're preventing the conditions in which they thrive from arising.
You got that clusterfk dead on, though.
It doesn't matter whether it's right or not, my comment was on how it's viewed. It's not seen favourably by lots of people, lots of people think that if the terrorists were serious about the principle that peace was in the best interests of the communities that they should have accepted the personal costs that go with that. It's heavily tainted by attitudes to Blair as well.You got that clusterf
k dead on, though.Along with that, the border issue is being pushed as "We can't do x, y or z as some terrorists will kick off again." Again, that doesn't resonate outside of SW1, where most people think terrorists shouldn't kick off and if they do they should be dealt with properly.
As I said, not necessarily my view, but that's the reality that May has to negotiate.
I take your point about it all being about perception, and I agree totally.
slow_poke said:
That didn't work so well back in the bad old days did it? or, bad old 30 years I suppose.
I take your point about it all being about perception, and I agree totally.
The geopolitical landscape is very, very different to how it was back then. Funding from the US is highly unlikely to rematerialise and I just don't see the different sides of the argument having the desire or stomach for violence any more. I take your point about it all being about perception, and I agree totally.
A risk...probably. But I'm not sure it's a huge one any longer.
As for the EU status quo, I would bet a large amount of money that a vote for full integration with the EU would be lucky to get near 20% of the vote in this country. Probably wouldn't make double digits. The key message from the vast majority of Remain advocates has always been "we have a veto for that"... Ironically that isn't seen as the UK being selfish. You can tell the EU is a fecked up philosophy when at every turn there are huge contradictions!
It should have stayed a pure trading bloc or integrated fully and without exception. The latter would never have been acceptable across the EU electorates. The former needed politicians to reel in their personal ambitions.
don'tbesilly said:
Pursuing the Customs 'partnership' which May seems to be favouring will be her demise.
I can't see May lasting more than a few months if she continues down that road, and many, many Leave voters would no doubt welcome her removal from Office.
Leaving both the Single Market and Customs union has been the headline in most of May's major speeches since she took office, and was a key stone in her Tory manifesto, which strangely the likes of Morgan, Soubry and Grieve seem to have forgotten or didn't notice when they stood on the back of the manifesto.
I'd guess many Leave voters see the Customs 'partnership' as a sell out, and such a 'partnership' certainly doesn't give what May promised, which was taking back control.
Moving forward from that I can see a GE being forced on the electorate between now and March 2019.
I think that's the nub of it , I for one won't be voting tory if they don't give us what they and the referendum promised I guess a corbyn led administration would do a lot of damage to the smug metropolitan ,FS, banker gravy train riders who are so against Brexit so they had all be careful what they get there political mates to force through, A soft brexit might not be quite the victory they think it would be ....... If 17 million vote labour along with the labour faithful .... I can't see May lasting more than a few months if she continues down that road, and many, many Leave voters would no doubt welcome her removal from Office.
Leaving both the Single Market and Customs union has been the headline in most of May's major speeches since she took office, and was a key stone in her Tory manifesto, which strangely the likes of Morgan, Soubry and Grieve seem to have forgotten or didn't notice when they stood on the back of the manifesto.
I'd guess many Leave voters see the Customs 'partnership' as a sell out, and such a 'partnership' certainly doesn't give what May promised, which was taking back control.
Moving forward from that I can see a GE being forced on the electorate between now and March 2019.
Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 16:49
powerstroke said:
I think that's the nub of it , I for one won't be voting tory if they don't give us what they and the referendum promised I guess a corbyn led administration would do a lot of damage to the smug metropolitan ,FS, banker gravy train riders who are so against Brexit so they had all be careful what they get there political mates to force through, A soft brexit might not be quite the victory they think it would be ....... If 17 million vote labour along with the labour faithful ....
You will vote for a government you don't want just to punish the tories?Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 16:49
PurpleMoonlight said:
powerstroke said:
I think that's the nub of it , I for one won't be voting tory if they don't give us what they and the referendum promised I guess a corbyn led administration would do a lot of damage to the smug metropolitan ,FS, banker gravy train riders who are so against Brexit so they had all be careful what they get there political mates to force through, A soft brexit might not be quite the victory they think it would be ....... If 17 million vote labour along with the labour faithful ....
You will vote for a government you don't want just to punish the tories?Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 16:49
Not sure Corbyn is clever enough to recognise he could back the lords motion for an EEA and possibly waltz into No.10....
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 9th May 17:46
p1stonhead said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
powerstroke said:
I think that's the nub of it , I for one won't be voting tory if they don't give us what they and the referendum promised I guess a corbyn led administration would do a lot of damage to the smug metropolitan ,FS, banker gravy train riders who are so against Brexit so they had all be careful what they get there political mates to force through, A soft brexit might not be quite the victory they think it would be ....... If 17 million vote labour along with the labour faithful ....
You will vote for a government you don't want just to punish the tories?Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 16:49
Not sure Corbyn is clever enough to recognise he could back the lords motion for an EEA and possibly waltz into No.10....
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 9th May 17:46
In bold above: Is that why Shadow Foreign Secretary Thornberry ruled out joining the EEA only today?
Of course as is often the case Labour are no better than the Tories on a Brexit policy, so it's a good chance Corbyn has no clue what Thornberry thinks or states.
If May fudges this my view is that a new UKIP will come through pretty quickly fuelled by Eurosceptic Tories, possibly similar from the Labour ranks and everyone's panto' villain Farage.
It wouldn't win an election IMO, but it would split the vote sufficiently for a hung parliament. I could even see a 4 way split to include the Lib Dems who may also benefit from current pro-EU MPs.
It wouldn't be quite as nightmarish as a Corbyn govt but would be a disaster for this country IMO as we would be left in the worst of all worlds vv the EU.
As noted before and I think as some reports have mentioned on one of the proposed options, I have no issue in principle with us collecting EU tariffs for goods transiting through the UK from outside both (less an admin fee
). But I dislike the idea of us levying that up front and giving refunds. Wrong way round.
Anything that curtails our ability to organise our own trade deals is a no go. That is not leaving.
May does not have a good track record at this sort of thing, but needs to hold firm. She will be annihilated at the polls if she fudges this. Is suspect by both sides (leave or remain) of the electorate.
It wouldn't win an election IMO, but it would split the vote sufficiently for a hung parliament. I could even see a 4 way split to include the Lib Dems who may also benefit from current pro-EU MPs.
It wouldn't be quite as nightmarish as a Corbyn govt but would be a disaster for this country IMO as we would be left in the worst of all worlds vv the EU.
As noted before and I think as some reports have mentioned on one of the proposed options, I have no issue in principle with us collecting EU tariffs for goods transiting through the UK from outside both (less an admin fee
). But I dislike the idea of us levying that up front and giving refunds. Wrong way round.Anything that curtails our ability to organise our own trade deals is a no go. That is not leaving.
May does not have a good track record at this sort of thing, but needs to hold firm. She will be annihilated at the polls if she fudges this. Is suspect by both sides (leave or remain) of the electorate.
Murph7355 said:
If May fudges this my view is that a new UKIP will come through pretty quickly fuelled by Eurosceptic Tories, possibly similar from the Labour ranks and everyone's panto' villain Farage.
It wouldn't win an election IMO, but it would split the vote sufficiently for a hung parliament. I could even see a 4 way split to include the Lib Dems who may also benefit from current pro-EU MPs.
This holding webpage is still there for a reason. http://thepatrioticalliance.co.uk/wp-content/theme...It wouldn't win an election IMO, but it would split the vote sufficiently for a hung parliament. I could even see a 4 way split to include the Lib Dems who may also benefit from current pro-EU MPs.
Key word being "Alliance" IMO................No doubt using the flag and the term "Patriotic" will bring out those that like to throw out the "R" card at each and every opportunity.
Thanks for your comment FiF.
I do agree as well that this thread became a little quieter more recently.
The irony is that I was not seeking to be at all provocative, but simply to raise another element to the discussion.
It would have been a clearer red question to have full integration vs leave.
Trying to maintain a weird ‘special’ middle ground is disengenuous at best.
I do agree as well that this thread became a little quieter more recently.
The irony is that I was not seeking to be at all provocative, but simply to raise another element to the discussion.
It would have been a clearer red question to have full integration vs leave.
Trying to maintain a weird ‘special’ middle ground is disengenuous at best.
don'tbesilly said:
p1stonhead said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
powerstroke said:
I think that's the nub of it , I for one won't be voting tory if they don't give us what they and the referendum promised I guess a corbyn led administration would do a lot of damage to the smug metropolitan ,FS, banker gravy train riders who are so against Brexit so they had all be careful what they get there political mates to force through, A soft brexit might not be quite the victory they think it would be ....... If 17 million vote labour along with the labour faithful ....
You will vote for a government you don't want just to punish the tories?Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 16:49
Not sure Corbyn is clever enough to recognise he could back the lords motion for an EEA and possibly waltz into No.10....
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 9th May 17:46
In bold above: Is that why Shadow Foreign Secretary Thornberry ruled out joining the EEA only today?
Of course as is often the case Labour are no better than the Tories on a Brexit policy, so it's a good chance Corbyn has no clue what Thornberry thinks or states.
I'm beginning to think this mess is Mays way of f
king it up so we stay in !! she has undermined the leave advantage by not talking tough and not having any red lines she should have said right from the start we are working towards WTO for trade and we will allow anyone who was here before we trigger article 50 to stay and would baring criminal record give automatic citizenship and anyone in after that on a case by case basis , the irish border well if you think it should be physical with barriers and officers on duty then you put it up we don't see any need apart from spot checks and ANPR system .. They could also ask the EU for there offer on free trade etc
As I see it May and the tories have no choice but a clear Brexit a fudge will destroy the economy, completely alienate the electorate on both remain and leave sides and her party would never be trusted for years the EU would nail us to the cross stoping us trading on our terms with them and stoping us trading with ROW ... we would also have rules on many other things and be paying in without even the tiny bit of influence we had before Rees Mog's Vassal state ..
The remain lobby is going to have to suck it up for the sake of the country this is a war we need everyone to put up or shut up , fine if they want to make the case for re joining later but we must leave fully then take stock and decide ...
Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 21:12
The Dangerous Elk said:
mike9009 said:
Remainer here 
- I would like to see a hard remain option.
I would like lots of things - I would like to see a hard remain option.Simply answering the question posed a few pagers back.
Skywalker said:
Can anyone who might class themselves as a remainer explain what the preferred outcome is if Brexit is torpedoed.
Is it a Hard Remain which will see the U.K. finally embrace full integration with the EU project including the US of Eu, take Schengen to our chest and accept the Euro?
Will it be a Soft Remain which will see the U.K. asking for the clock to be wound back and permission being regained for all those tedious opt outs?
Is a soft remain only as likely as unicorn poo now?
I would love to have a view of the alternative future which is being teased at or hoped for.
Is it a Hard Remain which will see the U.K. finally embrace full integration with the EU project including the US of Eu, take Schengen to our chest and accept the Euro?
Will it be a Soft Remain which will see the U.K. asking for the clock to be wound back and permission being regained for all those tedious opt outs?
Is a soft remain only as likely as unicorn poo now?
I would love to have a view of the alternative future which is being teased at or hoped for.
Skywalker said:
Thanks for your comment FiF.
I do agree as well that this thread became a little quieter more recently.
The irony is that I was not seeking to be at all provocative, but simply to raise another element to the discussion.
It would have been a clearer red question to have full integration vs leave.
Trying to maintain a weird ‘special’ middle ground is disengenuous at best.
I know I didn't vote remain ( I do agree as well that this thread became a little quieter more recently.
The irony is that I was not seeking to be at all provocative, but simply to raise another element to the discussion.
It would have been a clearer red question to have full integration vs leave.
Trying to maintain a weird ‘special’ middle ground is disengenuous at best.
) but I'll give it a go.It's ironic that Remain now appears to be a mirror image of what Leave was during the referendum.
The plurality of views from people who are nominally opposed to Brexit is pretty incredible really - from those who want to be as central to the project as the speaker's lectern in the parliament in Brussels right across to those who are looking for rather vague and wooly connections to the Union, just "better" than a FTA. You've also got those whose object is entirely mercenary (EU President-in-waiting Blair, for example)
The only thing that is uniting them is that "something needs to be done" - exactly the same as the Leave campaign, which saw liberal free-marketeers cheek-by-jowl with racists and communists, all because "something needs to be done".
IMO, if an election was called and the Tories lost properly, whatever replaced them (presumably with remain mandate) would be every bit as paralysed as the current government.
There was another question above - the one about the government being bound by parliament - which is pretty interesting. The below is all blue-sky thinking really, but I was having a discussion with some other business people yesterday about what they thought might happen in this situation.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
Government negotiates, but parliament ratifies and implements. In the EU withdrawal situation the bill before parliament is not the treaty, but serves to implement a lot of the "cross out the EU and write UK" stuff that's required for government to function after March the 29th next year. As a result I imagine the bill will be passed with a substantial number of "negotiating aims" in it, possibly conflicting with each other, because the meat of the bill is necessary to keep the lights on on March the 30th.
Parliament is sovereign but the Government could conceivably ignore what parliament has asked for, especially if the aims don't make much sense.
That decision would be subject to judicial review (and would almost certainly be judicially reviewed) but time is of the essence here - bear in mind that there's not really enough time to get this done on the current schedule, and adding weeks of extra time in the middle for legal shenanigans would be big trouble.
If anything, paralysis plays into the Brexiteer's hands. If nothing else is achieved between now and March 29th, it's a cliff-edge Brexit.
Things would speed up if the EU wasn't being shown a very real chance of either fully reversing Brexit, or getting us to stay in the SM & CU as is by our politicians and lords. Expect them to talk sense on the border etc while they have an interest in helping Remain politicians along ? Don't think so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff