 |
By *oodmess OP Man
over a year ago
yumsville |
Is part issue of our Brexit dilemma.
It was on the Daily Politics this afternoon. The inclusion of A50 within the treaty meant two things:
-A50 was acceded to treaty status.
-A50 due to how it was negotiated meant trade deals came after any withdrawal agreement.
At the time it drew opposition that it should be kept out and be the other way around but it went ahead. If it had been kept out of the treaty and if trade deals would have been put before the withdrawal in how any negotiation proceeded when triggered, we would now know the shape of our future rather than arguing about it.
Isn't that a thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmess OP Man
over a year ago
yumsville |
"It was written by the British.
If you don’t like it, you know who to blame now."
It is wonderful how current issues; political, social and structural (if in fact what was said is true), are almost engineered through a few lines on a page. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmess OP Man
over a year ago
yumsville |
And now we have a withdrawal by the 29th where the Attorney General has had weeks to prepare only submitted the MV3 motion a 1/4hr before 5pm debate to the house. He was working on it right up until that point. I find that shocking.
To make substantive changes for MV3 they split the political declaration from the legal agreement. Though one cannot carry without the other in UK law but it can for sake of process and EU law.
Fail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"It was written by the British.
If you don’t like it, you know who to blame now.
Yep....the Labour Government of 1997/2010 certainly had us over on that one."
Lord Kerr of Kinlochadie, no less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmess OP Man
over a year ago
yumsville |
"They are hardly rewriting old law, they are trying any means to have a treaty accepted. Whether it's legitimate is a matter for the courts.
So who will be taking who to court ? "
Anyone who believes strongly enough the presentation of mv3 was illegitimate, in getting it accepted into or ultimately by the house?
The phrase 'blind brexit' was used again on QT last night, yet it's interesting there is little can be done about how the talks go ahead. I wonder if MP's realise this, I actually doubt it. One of those small details that affects how negotiations run but doesn't get clarified. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
