Post by The Todal Post by Norman Wells Post by The Todal Post by Incubus Post by Dan S. MacAbre Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and
potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU
because they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal. The above would just not be
true or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The people voted on the basis that 'the government will implement what
you decide', not the government will prvaricate interminably.
Post by The Todal
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable.
Well, that's *Parliament* for you. *Parliament* voted overwhwelmingly,
by 498 votes to 114, to trigger Article 50. Before Article 50 was
triggered, there was nothing for the EU to negotiate. We hadn't
notified our intention to leave.
Article 50 prescribes the negotiations that *follow* such a
notification. They cannot precede it.
Post by The Todal
As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal.
That would be negotiating in public and setting out our bottom lines.
No-one with any sense does that for the other side to see. It's
Post by The Todal
Mrs May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Can't argue with that, but the negotiations had to be carried out by
someone. The Commons as a whole can't negotiate, so it had to delegate.
And who better to delegate it to than the UK government and in turn
its selected negotiators?
Properly structured, the negotiators should have had full and
irrevocable authority to finalise the deal. You don't negotiate with
the monkey if the organ grinder can just waltz in at the end and say no
after all the painful concessions have been made. But it wasn't
structured that way. Parliament was given the role of the organ
grinder, and has decided to play it. It was always a possibility.
Most people, I think, are happy that Mrs May's deal is a dead duck.
Apart from the EU of course who think we should honour it and think it
rather disreputable that we're not going to. But it was all in the
rules, so they can't really complain.
If the EU wants a deal, it will have to re-open negotiations on the
Withdrawal Agreement, and it too will have to second guess what
Parliament might approve, just as Mrs May did and got wrong.
Good luck with that I say.
Post by The Todal Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave. It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper. Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
It takes two to negotiate a deal. If one party is intransigent and
inflexible then it's always possible no deal will be achieved. But it
comes back to this - Article 50 had to be triggered before negotiations
could start, and Article 50 prescribes the time frame for those
negotiations. If no deal can be reached within the defined time frame,
then it's leaving with no deal.
That doesn't preclude future negotiations on trade or anything else. In
fact, necessity might even speed them up.