/ EU Withdrawal Bill #6

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Eric9Points 11 Sep 2019

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/enacted/data.htm

It's worth reading. While everybody has been saying that it prevents a No Deal Brexit it's not quite like that. In fact it prevents the government from leaving the EU with or without a deal unless Parliament votes in favour of whatever the government proposes. 

The bit I liked best was the letter included at the bottom requesting an extension which BJ just has to sign, put in an envelope and chuck into the out tray.

Snyggapa 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

a possible loophole (through red wine influenced pedantry eyes) - if we are forced to apply for an extension then if they don't reply until after close of parliamentary business on 30th October, allowing not enough time for the house of commons to pass or not pass a motion , the prime minister has to accept it. So if they offer a delay until 14th January 2999 but don't deliver that until the end of the day on the 30th, we're in for another millennium, give or take a bit.

Simples

HansStuttgart 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Snyggapa:

the faction that proposed this also has a serious problem if the EU responds by:

We'll grant an extension of two days. If in these two days the HoC votes for the WA, we further grant an extension till Dec 19th 2019 for the ratification process.

Eric9Points 11 Sep 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> the faction that proposed this also has a serious problem if the EU responds by:

> We'll grant an extension of two days. If in these two days the HoC votes for the WA, we further grant an extension till Dec 19th 2019 for the ratification process.


Why do you think they might do that?

HansStuttgart 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

First of all, I don't think they will do that. I think the EU will avoid this confrontation and offer another 3-6 month extension subject to a set of criteria (presumably a GE).

Reasons for following the above course of action:

it forces UK parliament to make an actual decision: revoke, WA, no deal. Parliament seems to be against no deal at the moment, so it could be good timing to force the issue. The WA is the most likely scenario and also the one the EU27 favours. EU27 can live with revocation if they have to. No deal would be bad, but manageable for the EU27 resulting in the WA anyway.

The EU27 public would be happy with it, because everybody is getting fed up with brexit and its lack of progression ( I know, I know, in the UK this is even worse ).

Telling all businesses to prepare for no deal and then extenting again is costing money. If no deal is going to happen, from a business point of view the date where we are actually preparing for is better than other dates. The extension of the Apr 1st deadline was expensive in this regard.

The EU27 has a running cost in extension as well. This is mostly council and parliamentary time devoted to brexit that could have been used for other issues.

Finally, the EU should avoid being seen in a geopolitical context as too weak to exert power over neighboring states. If, e.g., the EU sets a deadline to Marocco, it wants this deadline to be taken seriously and not have the rest of the world assume that the EU will extend anyway.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.