Just reading the cliff notes of the new Brexit deal, there don’t seem to be many surprises. Biggest is the fisheries part which basically seems like a bad deal in the short-term for the fishing industry, kicking the can down the road for later while imposing tarriffs and quotas until a deal is reached (basically hard Brexit for them, which isn’t good for anybody). Not looking good for the British finance industry either, but that was to be expected. Never any way the EU would allow London to maintain its privileges.
EU keeping a low profile (as they should - the negotiators pretty much got what they wanted, though individual nations may have some issues, e.g., with the fishery bit), but seems like this should be a tough sell for May. The politicking around this deal is going to be… interesting.
I thought this was significant from last night’s statement, I think it’s the first time May has mentioned the possibility, probably with another referendum in mind:
When you strip away the detail the choice before us is clear. This deal, which delivers on the vote of the referendum, which brings us back control of our money, laws and borders, ends free movement, protects jobs, security and our union, or leave with no deal, or no Brexit at all.
I hope the powers that be just say NO. As in, this is a shit deal, so no to this, and a no deal brexit is also shit, so let’s just stay in until we get an actual workable deal (never basically lol).
After all, we don’t need EU approval to cancel the process.
And in the meantime we start pushing the other countries around to reform what we want reformed.
Free movement of people, sure not a drama, no reason England can’t impose a foreigner tax, in the form of mandatory health insurance (like was done to me in Spain.) That’ll be a huge filter on the “great unwashed mass of job stealing immigrants!”
I reiterate, any individual issue any articular person has could probably be solved better by the British government pushing for change instead of just dismantling the organisation.
I mean, I suppose it gives the UK control of its money, but it already has that. And it does end free movement, which was the point as far as May was concerned, along with most Leave voters. Other than that, it makes the rest worse than before.
Question time, and Sir Vince Cable just pointed out that she mentioned that option (no Brexit), and asked what plans the Government were making for that alternative. Could Article 50 be revoked? May replied that the Government were not planning for a no Brexit scenario.
“…because it’s a return to the status quo, and so won’t need any special plans”, I’m hoping was implied. (Come on, it’s the first shred of optimism I’ve felt in 29 months!)
I think she was attempting to cast the no-deal and remain options as ways to frighten each side towards her deal. Instead it will likely embolden them, to see their prefered options still on the table.
Well, I don’t think that question was ever really tested, but it seems reasonable that if it requires parliamentary approval to invoke Article 50, it’s also necessary to be revoked. That said, the basis of the ruling that invoking it required a vote was that it was irrevocable. So who knows?
Well, yes, though that’s kind of a separate matter. It’s binding on the government, but it doesn’t actually have any legal effect in terms of the withdrawal itself, which is a matter of EU law.
One of the great contradictions of the 2017 election is that the vast majority of votes went to parties saying Brexit should happen, but that there’s probably a majority of mps who would prefer to remain.
While I agree with this (and really, this should have been the approach taken a long time ago - or at least left open by the UK govt as an option), I’m not convinced this would work now. A UK that “comes back” at this point, is not going to have as much soft power/influence and ability to direct the agenda as prior to Brexit. And certainly not with May at the helm.
