Article 50 Discussion

[cjcregg]

6 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

 

I'm not fully ofay with the details surrounding the Benn act,

 

but heres what i believe is one of johnson plans

 

Send an official notification requesting an extension, which the EU are certain would result in a general election and/or new referendum - so would grant (for many reasons - but mostly NOT interfering in national democratic process despite what the extreme right wing might claim)

 

Then send some sort of official notice that we don't want it/reject it - which the EU will be bound by - unlike some 'note saying 'we don't want it' - which is unlikely to be actioned by the EU.

 

Would Johnson send the note then just say we are leaving anyway and that he refuses the extension ... absolutely

but does the Benn bill allow that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ex Supreme Court Justice Jonathon Sumption (he who represented the banks in the Supreme Court bank charges case and won) was asked about that scenario and he said that if Johnson did anything contrary to genuinely seeking and obtaining an extension after the letter is sent it would have the effect of invalidating the extension request letter and he would thus be in breach of the Benn Act.

 

The act doesn't just require him to seek an extension, he has to accept it if the EU agrees to it.

[cjcregg]

This is the letter the Benn Act requires him to send.

 

Quote

“Dear Mr President,

The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

 

[cjcregg]

9 hours ago, Maharg1 said:

"Government have entered into private agreements with the European Community that they will, on completion of remain or whatever it is to be, transfer to the European Union in Brussels the entire control of our entire fighting forces, including all their equipment"

 

Quote

You're the one making the claim that it is garbage, I quoted what was said in the House of Lords.

 

 

Err not quite. Here's the actual (unedited) quote by Lord James of Blackheath as recorded in Hansard:

 

Quote

Is it really true that the Government have entered into private agreements with the European Community that they will, on completion of remain or whatever it is to be, transfer to the European Union in Brussels the entire control of our entire fighting forces, including all their equipment? [Laughter.]

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-09-06/debates/0C259B8B-7232-4228-BB00-E258510FD926/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)(No6)Bill

 

So not only did you edit the quote front & back to make it appear as a some kind of statement of fact, rather than a question, his peers laughed at it.

 

 

 

 

 

[cjcregg]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, apologies if it has, but if not I think most who post on this thread would find it especially interesting.

 

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but this 12 minute video from Bloomberg does seem raise some genuine questions about the integrity of Nigel Farage, the Leave campaign and their chums in the city.

 

 

 

[cjcregg]

7 hours ago, Maharg1 said:

There definitely is no concrete proof in any poll.  If proof of how rubbish and misleading they are, just take the in/out referendum polls.

they all said there would be a massive remain vote and it turned out the exact opposite.

Most got it wrong but it's a myth to say they all did . More than 25% of the polls conducted between the publication of the referendum question and vote predicted leave, and it was hardly a ''massive'' win.

[cjcregg]

12 hours ago, Maharg1 said:

I did try telling you but you insisted you knew better - whose got the last laugh now

 

As I recall the only thing you tried telling us was based on a quote that you selectively edited by Lord James of Blackheath. You misrepresented it as a statement of fact when it was actually a question which was laughed at by his peers in the House of Lords.  We told you it was garbage, you asked us to prove it and we did.

 

Remember?

Edited December 14, 2019 by cjcregg

[cjcregg]

6 hours ago, Maharg1 said:

You proved nothing.  All you continually harped on about was how great Commie Corbyn and the Labour party is and how

you are going to remain in the EU.

Read back through at what you said...

 

I did and once again you are completely wrong. I haven't expressed any opinion on Corbyn or Labour or that we'll remain in the EU.

 

Opinions are fine when they have at least some factual basis. If you want people to take you more seriously then at least try being honest. 

[cjcregg]

4 hours ago, fletch70 said:

 

Of course we will now have to wait 12 months to see what sort of trade deal we get

 

All the indications are that it'll take significantly more than 12 months. More like 12 years and in the meantime continued uncertainty for business, low investment and a weak pound. The real disaster is yet to happen.

[cjcregg]

11 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

There is no trade deal except what the EU believes it needs or wants, and thats withering by the hour.  Simple fact.

 

Look at how the EU has backed away from anything related over the last 2 months - didn't really matter whether corbyn or johnson won - corbyn had also already stated he wanted to renegotiate remain and leave.

 

 

 

Is this post available in English?

 

If you're going to present a point of view at least put some effort into making it coherent. 

[cjcregg]

 

11 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

 

 

From what I've read, a comprehensive trade agreement takes at least four years to negotiate.

 

 

 

There's no off-the-shelf timetable for a trade agreement. Trade deals typically evolve over centuries but the UK is in a really unusual situation as it had adopted the EU's trading arrangements for the last 40 odd years and suddenly it finds itself without a trading agreement with any nation on earth, or even a recent history of having one. It's like a country of 60 million + people with a comparatively large economy moving on to planet earth and starting from scratch.

 

As a democracy the UK has a lot of competing interests and so we won't just be negotiating trade deals with other nations, we'll also have to negotiate with ourselves which will take forever and a day and in the meantime the uncertainty damages our economy. This is why Brexit is the disaster it is.  

 

 

 

 

[cjcregg]

47 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

Brexit has got nothing to do with who sells what to who.  The government don't tell private companies where to trade.  This is all about the terms and conditions under which businesses operate, and without the risk of sounding like a broken record, businesses will have a choice to continue trading with us or to not.  The key issue has always been not to increase the costs to uk businesses because that would effect the amount of trade they do with the rest of the world because we have trade deals with the vast majority of wealthy countries, through the EU.  Leaving with no deal, or reduced terms would increase costs to uk businesses, which inevitably would hit our economy.

 

 

 

You're ignoring the most difficult issue in a trade agreement. It's not the tariffs or the lack of them  which is the tough part to reslove but the regulatory standards of the goods to be imported & exported that needs to be decided.

 

For example the EU banned the import of chlorine washed chicken since 1997 which of course hurts the US, and who are going to be very keen to include it in any new agreement with the UK and will use it to barter prospective concessions in exchange . As a nation we're going to first have to decided whether that is acceptable or not and that alone will be difficult enough to resolve. And that's just one product.

 

This has all the makings of a category 5 $h1t storm that will last an eternity. 

[cjcregg]

7 hours ago, London1971 said:

Refusing to extend the extension means absolutely nothing at the moment.  He has the complete power to reverse this closer to the time by passing another law,which will simply be rubber stamped by his huge majority, closer to the time.

 

An EU commissioner said that the extension would have had to have been requested by the UK government in the first instance in any event, so quite why Boris needs a law to bind himself from doing something he doesn't want to is anyone's guess. Oh, I know! It's populism!

[cjcregg]

58 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

... and imported goods including food more expensive.

….and given that we import significantly more than we export (around £47b per anum more) any reduction in the value of sterling represents a net loss to the UK.

 

But try telling that to a populist.

[cjcregg]

Long Baily out then and it won't be long before be the rest of the lefties get clipped and good riddance to them.

[cjcregg]

28 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

The only people that celebrate this news are those that love censorship.  Welcome to the new world order

 

 

No one is being censored, the article is still on The Independent and the link to it on the original tweet and retweet are still there. She got fired because she was irresponsible. 

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

 

 

Could I just ask people's thoughts on something please?

 

What is your opinion on having a general politics/world news type thread that isn't to do with Article 50, Covid or the US elections but can cover everything else in current affairs?

 

You mean like a miscellaneous moans, groans & conspiracy theories thread? No thanks. 

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

Quite so, TJ. Plus, as I said, if the government want to borrow money they're very likely to find tht their credit rating has gone down badly and they won't get the best interest rates.

 

Why would the UK's credit rating go down? The cost of UK Government borrowing is at an all time low.

[cjcregg]

2 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

Because if people like the World Bank or investors buying gilts think you renege on deals, they will want higher interest rates to lend you money. It will be interesting to see what people like Standard and Poor's think of this.

 

Not much is the answer. Standard & Poor haven't changed their AA credit rating of the UK since December last year.

 

 

[cjcregg]

30 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

But they still demoted us from AAA. This is from the BBC not long after the referendum; there's nothing to say we can't be downgraded again if things go badly after the end of the year, or even before.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36652494/just-what-is-a-aaa-rating-and-why-did-the-uk-lose-it

 

But that's from 2016. How is that relevant to the Government wanting to borrow now?

 

And shifting the tense from now to 'after the end of the year' is purely speculative.

 

Did you study economics at uni? I'm guessing not.

 

 

[cjcregg]

11 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

 

 

Are you saying things have improved since 2016?

In terms of the cost of the UK's borrowing, absolutely yes.

[cjcregg]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

I'm not up to speed on this. Is the problem that he went to Italy which doesn't seem to be on the 'no travel' list or that Perugia is close to Lebedev's sumptuous villa please?

 

If you're referring to the Johnson 'sighting' in Perugia, it's bull$hit.

 

The local's mistook Tony Blair for him.

[cjcregg]

8 hours ago, theoldrouge said:

Oh dear, Guardianistas in full flow

again

 

 

 

Tell me about it.

 

I was against Brexit but somehow I managed not to allow myself to turn my opposition to it into an obsession. 

[cjcregg]

9 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

I think there's a difference between obsession and wanting the UK to be well-managed and to get the best possible deal for the economy.

 

Indeed but at 167 pages of whining, bitching and complaining spanning over 4 years it's self-evidently clear what category some contributors to this thread fall into.

 

 

[cjcregg]

8 minutes ago, theoldrouge said:

would that be the same opinion that won the referendum?
confirmed in the Euro election
and gave Boris an 80 seat majority to “get Brexit done”?
 

That's a point that's often forgotten here. Governments are only as good as the so called ''serfs'' who elect them. It's the British public who voted this shower in and they only have themselves to blame. 

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

 

People in the red wall constituencies seem to be regretting how they voted

 

I'm sure they are and to be fair to them the alternative (Corbyn) would have been worse. He would have bankrupted the country by now.