EU agrees Brexit extension to 31 January
bbc.com
bbc.com
Maybe point on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603 instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Extensions
Granted 22 March 2019, 10 April 2019, and today.
This all started after the referendum, when David Cameron decided not to send in the A50 letter on the next working day. The EU-27 first mumbled politely that was okay, then mumbled equally politely that the letter had better be sent before a year had passed. And indeed it was signed and sent shortly before a year had passed.
There was nothing formal about that, but if you want to count deadlines then that one may be the first. Or not, IMO it depends on why you're counting.
There's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution...
How, say french PM, is going to justify to his ppl that they will suffer... say loss of 1% of gdp, just because politicians decided to teach British a lesson?
No politician would be willing to do this, that would be career suicide brought up every elections.
Plus bonus UK then gets a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.
'Oh, the evil EU kicked us out without us having say, and now we are suffering. See how bad EU is' - Borris or another brexiter PM.
It's true that what the people want is getting ignored by the political class; polls show a majority of the public wants to stay in the EU, now that is has become clear what leaving means, but the government keeps insisting on the hardest possible Brexit, against both common sense and the will of the people.
Please stop spreading fud. There are many videos that I can post which have many MPs stating that a leave vote means:
- Leaving the EU
- Leaving the single market
- Leaving the ECJ
- etc
Here are two examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MaYV778kgU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZas08SUtI
I'm sure there are more.
Saying that the British People didn't know what they were voting on is a myth that the remainders keep on perpetuating and it's simply not true.
Finally, if you don't agree. Please post some links opposing this post. Thanks.
- Daniel Hannan, May 2015
Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK
- Arron Banks, November 2015
Even Nigel Farage has argued for something similar to Norway or Switzerland (known as the "soft Brexit")[1].
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson...
[1] https://quotebrexit.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/leave-campaigne...
Given that the latest proposed Withdrawal Agreement would leave Northern Ireland in the single market and Customs Union, it appears you're actually reinforcing the point that no one knew what they were actually voting for.
It's one thing to do what's best for the country and what 17.4 million people voted for. It's another thing entirely to do what's best for yourself (that being boris)
First you are saying, people did not know what they are voting for.
Secondly, you are saying the deal on the table is not the one which was voted for.
You are conflating two different issues here.
On the second point. Yes, you are correct. The current negotiated treaty (don't call it a deal because it's a legally binding agreement) is not what the 17.4m British public wanted.
On the first point. The conservatives under May decided to interpret the will of the people and decided on a close relationship with the EU and she negotiated very badly. Thus we are where we are today due to her wilful negligence.
For the last 40 years Politicians have never delivered on their promises. Have never said what they will do on their manifestos. Are you surprised that Politicians are not doing a full on brexit? Because I am not.
Distant relationship, surely. She was negotiating a hard Brexit rather than the soft one that would have been more in line with some of the promises that had been made to the British public. Her mistake was pushing for an unreasonably hard Brexit which lead to all sorts of problems, including the Irish border. That turned out to be something she couldn't get through Parliament, and it has probably contributed to the general public turning against the idea of a Brexit entirely. No Brexit is apparently better than a bad Brexit.
> Distant relationship, surely. She was negotiating a hard Brexit rather than the soft one
No, Junker asked her if she wanted a FTA. She declined and wanted a closer relationship with frictionless trade. So she got the deal she wanted. The UK in the customs union.
> Her mistake was pushing for an unreasonably hard Brexit which lead to all sorts of problems, including the Irish border.
No being in the customs union means the UK has regulatory alignment with the EU. Frictionless trade. It's called BINO. Brexit in name only. It's a soft exit.
She couldn't get it through parliament due to the ERG in the conservatives wanting a much harder brexit and labour saying it did not do enough to be more aligned with the EU.
I'm going to ask a serious question. Have you actually read the withdrawal treaty? Because it's BINO. It's not a hard brexit.
Do you even know what a hard brexit is? Let me explain it to you.
- Own immigration policy. No free movement.
- Able to set own taxes. Corporate Tax, Income Tax, VAT, etc.
- Able to set own foreign policy, full control of army.
- Full control of local fishing waters. Only British fishermen allowed to fish.
- Able to set own regulations for businesses and for manufacturing goods and services.
- Outside of the ECJ. UK law > EU law.
- Great Britain and NI outside of the EU, together. The UK will not be putting up a hard border. Who knows (and cares) what the EU will do.
Let me explain Boris's Deal.
- Own immigration policy. No free movement.
- Regulatory alignment with EU. We have to set our taxes the same as theirs.
- In the transition period. The UK cannot veto anything the EU does and the UK cannot act in such a manner that the EU does not like. After the transition period, some fear that Britain will join the EU army.
- Whilst UK fisherman now have access to UK waters. EU fisherman will STILL be able to fish there.
- Regulatory alignment with EU. We have to set our regulations the same as theirs.
- Probably still under the jurisdiction the ECJ.
- NI inside the EU still. A border in the Irish sea. Although the NI assembly have the right to change this every 4 years. But they have not sat for many years, who knows if this will ever get changed. Regardless the DUP are not happy.
Now that I have outlined both scenarios. Do you still think that May/Boris were wanting a hard brexit?
Finally, why does the EU want the UK to ratify this terrible deal and why the EU does not want a hard brexit?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/11/angela-merkel-...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/14/eu-right-fea...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1180469/Brexit-news-fear-E...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1195966/brexit-lates...
These 4 articles should tell you everything you need to know.
And what is "theirs" here? The EU does not have a singular tax policy. I hope there's some coordination, but every country sets their own tax policy. Your post makes it sound like you're giving that up by leaving the EU.
Many of the things you want, you already had as a member of the EU. You had your own tax policy, foreign policy, full control of your army (if not, then that's on NATO; the EU has nothing to do with armies).
Stuff like fishing, manufacturing regulations, trade, etc are indeed subject to many EU (not to mention international) treaties. You make it sound like the UK does not want any treaties with anyone anymore. Even the WTO is an international treaty. Do you want to leave that too? Do you realise you're asking for economic isolation here? Self-imposed economic sanctions?
And yes, what May wants is a hard Brexit. Anything that takes the UK out of the EU common market is a hard Brexit. Anything that leaves the UK with access to the common market (the Norway or Switzerland model that Brexiteers used to argue for) is a soft Brexit. Breaking off all treaties like you're proposing is the No-Deal Brexit that Johnson seems to prefer if only Parliament would let him.
https://twitter.com/KatarinaKeys/status/1188785762436816896
But it is indeed a crisis of democracy: the elected leaders should be able to prevent self-harm scenarios like this.
I.e. the elected leaders held a position you strongly disagreed with, and there had been a referendum on the question in which the opposition to that idea had won?
A tiny majority believed the unicorny promises, and voted for the unicorn in 2016.
After three years of mucking about, it turns out that the best the town council can get is either a very old and haggard pony with an inflatable novelty unicorn horn (Johnson's deal), or the rotting cadaver of a dead horse with a carrot glued on its head (no-deal Brexit).
Obviously, one of these two must happen, because the people voted for it. Keeping the perfectly serviceable horse they have now is not an option, because democracy has spoken, and changing your mind is not allowed (because democracy).
Granted, as a European I may be a bit cynical about this mess.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_C...
Maastricht and Lisbon treaty would of been key changes in that transition that many countries had votes (and also revotes) upon. The UK, did not alas and it is pretty obvious that it should of.
Ironically, the children of 1975 era had no say in their future until 2016 and you can see how they voted. Also those that who in 1975 voted to join the ECM, turned out to be twice as likely to vote to leave the EU in 2016.
But the whole aspect of thresholds is one that does need some thought and equally turnout. Maybe voting should be compulsory? Maybe threshold standards need to be defined. After all, does the EU really want to have members who are not that commited to the goals?
Democracy is a fickle matter depending upon how you measure it.
Both predicting and contributing to this crisis was George Soros, who shorted the pound sterling and profited immensely from it. This is one of many reasons he is a controversial figure in some circles.
If they did a referendum upon the Pound and the Euro in the UK, the result would be much clearer and conclusive than any membership referendum. Heck, even Scotland if it leaves the UK, wants to keep the Pound.
AS for the Euro, it worries me, so much QE has been actioned by the ECB, that it just feels like, once that eventually stops https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-ecb-qe/the-life-... though they have instigated new QE measures this year.
One aspect the UK has impacted the Euro has been in blocking (as a members vote) many initiatives to control the financial markets and with that, been instrumental in curtailing the controls needed for a large encompassing currency.
But I totally disagree that the UK's primary reason for adopting the Euro was due to the ERM shenanigans. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/215/uncategorized/why-uk-... covers some reasons. But to say it is complicated is part and parcel of any currency control.
Remember, the UK's key income area's are Financial and Services, two area's in which the EU has been stymied to take control of, mostly due to it not being in the UK's main interest. Heck, even opening up services has been a backfoot EU initiative with members still not opening up those markets. But that is another matter, equally complicated and hard to summarize in a few sentences.
It's not the referendum that's to blame here, it's the government that's using the referendum as an excuse to push through their own ideas.
I believe these are the reasons that the government + parliament have found it so hard/failed to come to a conclusion. It's also the reason I don't think this whole saga is anywhere near done.
Personally I'd like to see a second ref on specific options, but that seems unlikely now.
The degree of intra-party struggle and defections, including from the cabinet, experienced by the Tories over Brexit divisions since the referendum suggest that the referendum did not, in fact, solve the intra-Conservative-Party issue.