Posted on 10/20/2019 5:39:23 AM PDT by FRinCanada2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdMl55c7Q
UK PM Boris Johnson sends UNsigned letter to EU asking for delay. Followed by a SIGNED letter asking the EU to NOT approve the DELAY requested in the unsigned letter.
The EU will grant an extension....they need the UK’s money.
But what about the argument that the EU is really trying to comply with Brexit but that darned unsigned letter is forcing them to approve the unwanted extension. /sarcasm
We used to have conventions, unwritten rules, that were respected once upon a time as a means of conducting governance without having to have things set out in statute law, but brexit has seen them being torn up with gay abandon by people who will do anything to win, which sets a terrible precedent for the future when remainers and lefties are at the point of screeching for their political opponents to be jailed if they can find an excuse for doing so.
Be aware that a No Deal brexit denies the EU the big divorce payment. It’s several tens of billions of dollars. So if the UK is to leave the EU wants it to be within the context of the deal Johnson negotiated, because in that deal the payment is mentioned.
Probably the eastern European countries. They remember what socialism/communism was like and hate it.
So why is the parliament so opposed to a no deal Brexit?
“Will clearly show whether the UK Goverment is respected or not.”
Obviously, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act needs to be repealed or amended to create a safety valve for a situation like this one, where the government lacks confidence but there cannot be an election.
My preference, of course, is for HMQ to dissolve Parliament on her own, but apparently the FTPA prohibits this. Since a 2/3 vote is needed to dissolve now, that means that a minority of 1/3 +1, afraid of losing an election, can keep the government unable to legislate for up to five years.
>>So why is the parliament so opposed to a no deal Brexit?<<
I’m going to guess that some people are making money from the current setup.
Clearly. But don’t they have an obligation for vote in a manner consistent with their constituents?
ha.
at one recent point i recall that the EU claimed that it needed “real progress” on a deal from the UK government in order to grant an extension. whatever happened to that given that the member states now seem to be making noise to accept literally anything to grant an extension?
also boris states that he refuses to negotiate further or something like that. so there is no “real progress” and if eu sticks to its previous word then in theory a hard brexit should result. the eu seems to be going back on its word which should tell the UK public (if they are awake and paying attention, both somewhat debatable i realize) all it needs to know about the true motivations and goals of the EU.
I might be missing something...
I think you got it covered there. If the EU accepts an unsigned and debatably illegal request for extension they are showing their real motive is to FORCE the UK to stay in the club and pay club dues. Kinda like trying to get out of gang. Maybe Boris needs to jump in and VETO his unsigned request for extension and see if the EU rules his VETO out of order. That should get the UK People attention??
Explicitly No. Section 4 of Article 50 is specifically about that point ("... the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.")
Hmm. Sounds like it is rigged to force members to stay in the gang?
Geez, it’s almost like a letter sent ‘under duress’
That’s exactly what it was. Would be like IF the US President votes NO on a UN resolution and is forced to vote YES because congress Overturns a VETO demanding the US to vote YES on that resolution by 2/3 vote in congress and being forced to write a letter to the UN that his previous opposition has been overturned by Congressional overriding VETO but still communicating his opposition and asking other countries to vote NO and override his forced YES. Not sure If that could ever happen or not But that is essentially what happened here.
I can see an argument for that, but I don't believe that was the intention - at least by the European Union.
The entirety of Article 50 is designed to set out a clear and fairly straightforward process for a member to leave the European Union.
But the writers rather assumed that the country that was trying to do it would not be dealing with people within its own country trying to derail the entire process.
That is the problem here.
Some of the 'Remainers' - not all of them, but some of them - are willing to use any tactic they can to derail Brexit. And they are exploiting the weaknesses of Article 50.
They are aided and abetted by this by their comrades in other EU countries who also don't Britain to leave, and some of those comrades do hold significant positions in the governments of their own countries (EU member states) or in the EU heirarchy - and they are also using Article 50 to frustrate.
But the European Union as a whole probably doesn't much care if a member leaves - it's the fight between the factions within that is the issue.
The second is a private letter from Boris. The former is an official letter, if unsigned, by the office of prime minister of the UK.
The simplest thing is that they will ask for a clarification and Nojo will be obliged go give it.
It’s a way for bojo to claim he didn’t die in a ditch, but it IS a formal request from the UK for an extension
There are lots of reasons.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Parliament is not divided in two on this issue - if it was simply one side versus the other, we'd have a resolution by now.
Either Britain would be out. Or Brexit would have been cancelled.
I'd prefer the former - but the latter is certainly something Parliament has the constitutional right to do.
If they had the numbers to do it, and they don't.
The majority of MPs are, in fact, probably willing to vote for some form of Brexit.
But the problem is they all have to vote on the same form.
Or at least 50%+1 of them do.
And that is what isn't happening.
Some want 'No Deal'.
Some have particular issues that if those single issues were addressed, they'd vote for Brexit, whatever the rest of it was.
There are people who don't care about anything except maintaining freedom of movement - they'd vote for everything else if it was agreed British citizens could still travel freely in Europe, and EU citizens could still travel freely in Britain.
There are people who don't care about anything except a Customs Union - they'd vote for everything else if that was agreed.
There are people who only care about cutting immigration - do that and they'd agree to everything else.
But there are others who would agree to everything except a cut in immigration...
And the biggest problem is some of these people still feel they can get what they want - if there's more time.
So they will push for a delay.
There are others for whom their motivations could be entirely selfish, too.
But a lot are actually trying to get what they regard as a good result for their country.
They really are.
I've been involved in trying the UK out of Europe for close to twenty years. For me, the core issue is sovereignty - I believe British sovereignty is somewhat eroded by its membership of the EU, but the real risk is that eventually it could be lost completely. So I want out now, to stop that happening.
If I was an MP, I would have spent the last two years trying to get a Brexit deal that included Britain staying in a customs union with the European Union - because I believe in freedom of trade, and free markets - Britain joined a Common Market and if the EU had stayed just a Common Market, I wouldn't want to leave - but over time it has become more than that and the stated aim is 'ever closer union'.
I would have also probably supported continuing to allow freedom of movement between EU countries and the UK - although not freedom of settlement.
But I would have wanted the UK out of the European Parliament and a clear understanding that European laws never supersede British law in Britain and never can.
This is what I'd have been trying to get for the last two years.
Would I, today, vote for the deal Johnson has presented to Parliament? Reluctantly, yes. With ten days to go, there just isn't time to get what I would want. And my view is better out than in.
Would I, today, vote for 'No Deal'? Yes, reluctantly, yes. Same reasons. With ten days to go, there just isn't time to get what I would want. And my view is better out than in.
But I can't pretend it would be my ideal solution.
Remember, in the UK it is parliament who is sovereign, not the people.
The former letter requesting an extension is from the office of prime minister and has that weight.
The latter is a personal letter.
And the simplest response will be “I beg your pardon, did you forget to sign it? If you want to, sign it, send it back signed.”
Boris is playing political Kabul to squirm out of his statement that he wouldn’t ask for another extension.
But, second letter notwithstanding, boris DID just ask for a third extension.
The EU is a confederation, it’s executive consists of the heads of government of the 28 states.
If President Trump sends an official letter that is opposed by the Democrat population, do you expect the wto etc leaders to listen to the president or “the people “?
As I said above, this is a formal request from the office of prime minister, the response at most will be “pardon, you forgot to sign it. Sign it and send it back “
Its not a gotcha, rather political grandstanding
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.