Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 16:24:07 GMT
But it is still speculation and no one has proof that is what he's trying to do. It might be or it might not.There's so much negativity, inaccurate information and speculation swirling around with everyone wanting to get in on the act. He's still got time to get a deal and if not then we will leave but goodness we need to give him that chance rather than block his way to every corner when the opposition to Brexit has nothing better to offer. He's consistently said that he will carry out the will of the British people to leave the EU and that is what he's trying to do....it's not a game! According to some reports and comments it was going to be a disaster and a waste of time when he met the Irish PM today too but the press conference showed otherwise.... a friendly encounter with both sides ready to find a solution and both sides understood where the other was coming from. Nobody has clean hands in this, not even Labour, so people should not be too hasty in condemning one over the other. Yesterday, Dominic Raab alluded to a legal challenge so I think that’s the direction they’re (Boris/Tories) going. And I’m thinking they may have a case. The challenge could also come from outside the government. The government had two legal challenges against them this last week and the government won both of them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 16:31:29 GMT
But it is still speculation and no one has proof that is what he's trying to do. It might be or it might not.There's so much negativity, inaccurate information and speculation swirling around with everyone wanting to get in on the act. He's still got time to get a deal and if not then we will leave but goodness we need to give him that chance rather than block his way to every corner when the opposition to Brexit has nothing better to offer. He's consistently said that he will carry out the will of the British people to leave the EU and that is what he's trying to do....it's not a game! According to some reports and comments it was going to be a disaster and a waste of time when he met the Irish PM today too but the press conference showed otherwise.... a friendly encounter with both sides ready to find a solution and both sides understood where the other was coming from. Nobody has clean hands in this, not even Labour, so people should not be too hasty in condemning one over the other. Yesterday, Dominic Raab alluded to a legal challenge so I think that’s the direction they’re (Boris/Tories) going. And I’m thinking they may have a case.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 16:55:41 GMT
Nobody has clean hands in this, not even Labour, so people should not be too hasty in condemning one over the other. Yesterday, Dominic Raab alluded to a legal challenge so I think that’s the direction they’re (Boris/Tories) going. And I’m thinking they may have a case. That is exactly the misinformation that is circling around........ the title of that video" Raab will find a loop hole" He didn't say that at all and he called her out when she tried to wrongly interpret what he said . It's responsible to review the legality of any bill, especially one that has been drafted and voted on with such urgency. Legislation should be written in such a way as to be water tight at inception and not found out to be ambiguous after they become law.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 9, 2019 17:27:35 GMT
That is exactly the misinformation that is circling around........ the title of that video" Raab will find a loop hole" He didn't say that at all and he called her out when she tried to wrongly interpret what he said . It's responsible to review the legality of any bill, especially one that has been drafted and voted on with such urgency. Legislation should be written in such a way as to be water tight at inception and not found out to be ambiguous after they become law. I agree. These are not loopholes. I don’t even know why they would use that word. The possible issues are the wording of the bill and/or error in the process.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 17:37:01 GMT
Because that's what people like Boris & Trump do - look for loopholes. ps- Others are using that word to describe the frenzy to find a way out of asking for an extension if no new transition deal is forthcoming. No one is saying EU will extend, but the issue is ASKING for it, not whether or not it's granted. "Lord Sumption, a former supreme court judge, told the Today programme earlier this would be illegal. (See 8.09am.) This is what he said when asked if it would be legal for the PM to seek an article 50 extension while trying to sabotage the strategy at the same time. No, of course it wouldn’t. The bill, or act as it’s about to become, says that he’s got to apply for an extension. Not only has he got to send the letter, he’s got to apply for an extension. To send the letter and then try to neutralise it seems to me, plainly, a breach of the act. What you’ve got to realise is the courts are not very fond of loopholes." www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/09/brexit-latest-news-eu-no-deal-bill-royal-assent-boris-johnson-parliament-politics-live?page=with:block-5d760bbf8f083106f4558009
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 9, 2019 17:49:26 GMT
Because that's what people like Boris & Trump do - look for loopholes. ps- Others are using that word to describe the frenzy to find a way out of asking for an extension if no new transition deal is forthcoming. No one is saying EU will extend, but the issue is ASKING for it, not whether or not it's granted. "Lord Sumption, a former supreme court judge, told the Today programme earlier this would be illegal. (See 8.09am.) This is what he said when asked if it would be legal for the PM to seek an article 50 extension while trying to sabotage the strategy at the same time. No, of course it wouldn’t. The bill, or act as it’s about to become, says that he’s got to apply for an extension. Not only has he got to send the letter, he’s got to apply for an extension. To send the letter and then try to neutralise it seems to me, plainly, a breach of the act. What you’ve got to realise is the courts are not very fond of loopholes." www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/09/brexit-latest-news-eu-no-deal-bill-royal-assent-boris-johnson-parliament-politics-live?page=with:block-5d760bbf8f083106f4558009To send a second letter saying UK does not want an extension to sabotage the first is what Sumption is referring to. It has nothing to do with the legal challenge that will possibly be mounted by the Boris camp (maybe, no one’s 100% sure yet they will challenge). You’re conflating two separate and distinct occurrences. And I think that's Dotty's point. Because of which side one falls on this, anything Boris does or is ASSUMED to be doing is suspect.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 17:49:26 GMT
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 9, 2019 19:07:00 GMT
Nobody has clean hands in this, not even Labour, so people should not be too hasty in condemning one over the other. Yesterday, Dominic Raab alluded to a legal challenge so I think that’s the direction they’re (Boris/Tories) going. And I’m thinking they may have a case. The challenge could also come from outside the government. The government had two legal challenges against them this last week and the government won both of them. Which only makes sense, right? You cannot make the Queen's decision justiciable. Her PM is exercising her prerogative as her agent and therefore, regardless of whether the intention was malign or benign, it doesn't matter. But Miller knew that, so did Major, et al. But you know, gotta try, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 23:33:39 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 16:31:32 GMT
"Downing Street’s secrecy over its “underwhelming” Brexit proposals has caused a fresh rupture in the negotiations in Brussels, where the two sides appear to be increasingly at loggerheads. The row has been sparked by a British demand that the EU’s negotiating team treat a long-awaited cache of documents outlining the UK’s latest ideas as “Her Majesty’s government property”. Whitehall told the European commission team that the three “confidential” papers should not be distributed to Brexit delegates representing the EU’s 27 other member states. Sources in Brussels said that in response the point was being made forcefully to the British negotiating team that all proposals would need to be made available for the EU’s capitals to analyse for talks to progress. With just six weeks to go until 31 October when the UK is due to leave the EU, there is despair in Brussels at the state of the talks, with the latest ideas seen as “more of the same” from Downing Street." www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/20/fresh-brexit-talks-row-uk-eu-proposals-secret
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 14:07:08 GMT
Police Watchdog Is Asked to Review Boris Johnson’s Ties to U.S. Businesswoman www.nytimes.com/2019/09/28/world/europe/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri.html"The letter said she was legally obligated to refer Mr. Johnson to the police watchdog because she had been made aware of accusations that, if true, could amount to an offense of misconduct in public office. “During this time it has been brought to my attention that you maintained a friendship with Ms. Jennifer Arcuri, and as a result of that friendship allowed Ms. Arcuri to participate in trade missions and receive sponsorship monies in circumstances where she and her companies could not have expected otherwise to receive those benefits,” the letter said." Yeah, she paid her own way on some of the trade missions but THE ACCESS ITSELF IS THE THING OF VALUE. You know how much trade mission access is worth?!?!?!??! F'ers always obfuscating the key point w/side points.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 12:52:52 GMT
Brexit: What is Boris Johnson's plan to avoid a hard Irish border? "Customs union The government wants the UK to leave the EU customs union. This would mean Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland ending up in two different customs territories. This means lorries entering the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland will need to complete customs declarations. This is to ensure the correct tariffs (tax on imports) are paid when UK goods enter the EU customs union. Customs checks Instead of installing customs posts and other physical infrastructure at the Irish border, the UK says declarations should be done electronically. The government says physical checks would still be needed "on a very small proportion of movements". Currently, about one in 100 consignments entering the EU customs union are inspected to check that the goods match the information on the declaration. These inspections could be carried out at warehouses or "designated locations, which could be located anywhere in Ireland or Northern Ireland." The government's proposal does not spell out what these "designated locations" would look like, but it adds there should be "a firm commitment (by both parties) never to conduct checks at the border in future". If adopted, a border solution relying on technology and remote checks would be a first. The EU does not currently share a single border with a non-EU country where checks have been completely eliminated. That includes Norway (not in the EU) and Sweden (an EU member) - which share one of the most technologically advanced borders in the world. Their main crossing point processes about 1,300 lorries a day, with each waiting 20 minutes on average. The EU has previously rejected a customs solution that relies on technology. Back in January, Sabine Weyand, the EU's director-general for trade, said: "We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls." Regulations on goods When it comes to the regulation of goods, Northern Ireland would keep to the rules of the EU's single market, rather than UK rules. That removes the need for product standard and safety checks on goods at the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, because both will be part of an "all-island regulatory zone". But it creates the need for checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK - which will not be sticking to EU single market rules. All agricultural, food or animal products entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK will have to go through a Border Inspection Post. That's a bit of infrastructure where goods can be physically examined and paperwork checked. Manufactured goods in Northern Ireland would also have to keep to EU rules, and these goods would be checked "at the boundary of the zone" - presumably at crossings between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, on the Irish Sea. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49909866
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 12:59:44 GMT
"They want the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, to rule on the extent to which Mr Johnson is bound by the legislation passed by opposition MPs - the so-called Benn Act - which requires the government to request an extension to the 31 October Brexit deadline if a deal has not been signed off by Parliament by 19 October. Mr Johnson has said "we will obey the law, and will come out on 31 October" in any event, without specifying how he would achieve these apparently contradictory goals. There had been speculation Downing Street had identified a legal loophole to get around the Benn Act, named after Labour's Hilary Benn who spearheaded the law's passage through Parliament. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49936352
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 13:03:23 GMT
|
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,760
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Oct 4, 2019 13:23:03 GMT
re the Irish border and the different treatment of N.I. from the rest of the UK it did make me wonder why Arlene Foster appears to be accepting this as it goes against everything she and the DUP have been saying since this process began. Then I read about the ability to vote on it locally and of course Stormont has not sat for ages (2 and half years over an issue Arlene was responsible for) and the DUP can ensure that it can't sit or vote by refusing to power share as outlined under the Good Friday Agreement. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49931584
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2019 13:19:56 GMT
"The UK is already up to a staggering £66bn poorer because of the Brexit vote after economic growth evaporated, experts warn today. The huge loss means the hit to national income – around £420m a week – is greater than Boris Johnson’s discredited claim that leaving the EU would deliver a £350m boost for the NHS. Instead, the nation’s wealth has slumped by between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent, a loss of £55–£66bn, in the three years since the June 2016 vote, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded. “We suspect the UK has missed out almost entirely on a bout of global growth, which would normally have boosted exports and investment,” its devastating report says. The IFS’s ‘green budget’ also highlights the “hugely damaging” hit to private sector investment from the vote to leave the EU – after it slumped by up to 20 per cent." www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-brexit-boris-johnson-institute-fiscal-studies-growth-exports-a9146386.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2019 13:20:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 9, 2019 16:48:05 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 2:00:30 GMT
"The Conservative Party has produced leaflets appearing to show that Boris Johnson has accepted Brexit may be delayed until after 31 October. The flyers, made available to activists last week, warn voters that supporting the Brexit Party would mean "more delay" because the party "can't deliver Brexit". The wording suggests that the Tories expect Brexit may not have happened when the leaflets are distributed, despite Mr Johnson having repeatedly vowed to take the UK out of the EU by the end of October "do or die"." www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-news-deal-latest-tory-leaflet-leak-a9156711.html
|
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,760
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Oct 17, 2019 9:53:04 GMT
So Boris is saying there is a deal and the DUP are saying they won't/don't support it. Wonder where he's going to get his votes from in parliament?
It would please my heart to see Arlene Foster sidelined as her influence far outstrips her mandate.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 10:42:11 GMT
I'm fed up with the lot of them. They couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery ( as we Brits say). I listened to one MP earlier this week ( I don't know who he was) saying he wasn't going to vote for the deal............he didn't even know what was in the deal that they're discussing now, So how was going to vote against it if he didn't know what was in it. How crazy is that? Even if the deal was perfect in every way they're not going to vote for it! They're hell bent on ignoring that referendum whatever is agreed. That isn't democracy IMO. They're there to represent the public not to vote on their personal preference.
When we have a general election are we going to have another one because someone didn't like the results?
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 17, 2019 11:18:42 GMT
I'm fed up with the lot of them. When we have a general election are we going to have another one because someone didn't like the results? I’m fed up with them all too. But it’s not that ‘someone didn’t like the result’ it’s virtually half the nation that feel that we were mislead. The difficulty is that we were asked the question in the wrong way initially imo. Leaving without a deal is madness and I don’t think anyone foresaw that being a possibility for whatever reason. If we’d been asked do you want to remain or to leave with no deal I wonder what the result would have been. You may well say that it’s irrelevant now but I think it’s important that we leave in the right way, protecting ourselves suitably, even though it’s proving so very difficult.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 12:25:25 GMT
I'm fed up with the lot of them. When we have a general election are we going to have another one because someone didn't like the results? I’m fed up with them all too. But it’s not that ‘someone didn’t like the result’ it’s virtually half the nation that feel that we were mislead. The difficulty is that we were asked the question in the wrong way initially imo. Leaving without a deal is madness and I don’t think anyone foresaw that being a possibility for whatever reason. If we’d been asked do you want to remain or to leave with no deal I wonder what the result would have been. You may well say that it’s irrelevant now but I think it’s important that we leave in the right way, protecting ourselves suitably, even though it’s proving so very difficult. I don't think that would have made a difference to be honest, Some members of the public don't seem to understand what the deal is about. I'm not saying you don't but listening to other general opinions. It's a deal to carry us through the transitional period which, I assumed, everyone knew would take some time to implement the final severance. It's not a final deal for things like a trade agreement, our own laws being transferred under our parliament rather than as we do now, agreeing to implement the EU laws etc. and the biggest one of all the border in NI. A lot of people think that what is being discussed now is the final deal on these things, especially the trade agreements and the anti brexit people are vocal in suggesting they are. The number of people I've heard that think we're going to be paying through the nose on tariff until the year dot is shocking.Of course we're not. The trade agreement will be a new one with the EU in the same way as we will have a trade agreement with any other country when we leave. It's quite possible that there won't be any difference to the agreement we have now in that we don't have a tariff between us and the EU in the future.But until we leave part of the deal is we carry on as we are now during the transitional period until such time during the transition period we broker a new trade agreement. It's the same with many of the laws we have. At the moment we have adopted EU laws, they all need to be re-worded and passed through parliament to be UK only laws.There's nothing to suggest that those laws will be any different after we leave but we have to have a deal with the EU during the transition period that allows us to still use those laws under the conditions and wording we agreed to them until such time that ours are in place. I really don't know how they are going to sort the NI border out, I really don't. But I also feel that we shouldn't be held to ransom to stay because of the disagreement.I don;t know the answer. So it's a devil and the deep blue sea situation. Yes, it would be the best thing to do, to leave with a deal covering the transitional period, but the way things are now with some of the MP's prepared to vote against anything that they come up with without even knowing what they're voting for, we're never going to get there, that was my point. They don't know what is in the " new" deal so how can they vote against something they have no knowledge of? That is what makes me believe that whatever they bring to the table it will be a no go. They've already made their minds up. Whether we agree whether the initial question was right or wrong now, why didn't all these people bring it up at the time? It was changed once as it was ambiguous. That was the time to bring it up but not one of the anti brexit MP's said a word at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 13:35:39 GMT
I’m fed up with them all too. But it’s not that ‘someone didn’t like the result’ it’s virtually half the nation that feel that we were mislead. The difficulty is that we were asked the question in the wrong way initially imo. Leaving without a deal is madness and I don’t think anyone foresaw that being a possibility for whatever reason. If we’d been asked do you want to remain or to leave with no deal I wonder what the result would have been. You may well say that it’s irrelevant now but I think it’s important that we leave in the right way, protecting ourselves suitably, even though it’s proving so very difficult. I don't think that would have made a difference to be honest, Some members of the public don't seem to understand what the deal is about. I'm not saying you don't but listening to other general opinions. It's a deal to carry us through the transitional period which, I assumed, everyone knew would take some time to implement the final severance. It's not a final deal for things like a trade agreement, our own laws being transferred under our parliament rather than as we do now, agreeing to implement the EU laws etc. and the biggest one of all the border in NI. A lot of people think that what is being discussed now is the final deal on these things, especially the trade agreements and the anti brexit people are vocal in suggesting they are. The number of people I've heard that think we're going to be paying through the nose on tariff until the year dot is shocking.Of course we're not. The trade agreement will be a new one with the EU in the same way as we will have a trade agreement with any other country when we leave. It's quite possible that there won't be any difference to the agreement we have now in that we don't have a tariff between us and the EU in the future.But until we leave part of the deal is we carry on as we are now during the transitional period until such time during the transition period we broker a new trade agreement. It's the same with many of the laws we have. At the moment we have adopted EU laws, they all need to be re-worded and passed through parliament to be UK only laws.There's nothing to suggest that those laws will be any different after we leave but we have to have a deal with the EU during the transition period that allows us to still use those laws under the conditions and wording we agreed to them until such time that ours are in place. I really don't know how they are going to sort the NI border out, I really don't. But I also feel that we shouldn't be held to ransom to stay because of the disagreement.I don;t know the answer. So it's a devil and the deep blue sea situation. Yes, it would be the best thing to do, to leave with a deal covering the transitional period, but the way things are now with some of the MP's prepared to vote against anything that they come up with without even knowing what they're voting for, we're never going to get there, that was my point. They don't know what is in the " new" deal so how can they vote against something they have no knowledge of? That is what makes me believe that whatever they bring to the table it will be a no go. They've already made their minds up. Whether we agree whether the initial question was right or wrong now, why didn't all these people bring it up at the time? It was changed once as it was ambiguous. That was the time to bring it up but not one of the anti brexit MP's said a word at the time. If they can't even do the brexit deal, I don't see how doing the ultimate bilateral trade/customs/migrations deals w/the EU is going to be any better/different.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 14:20:18 GMT
I don't think that would have made a difference to be honest, Some members of the public don't seem to understand what the deal is about. I'm not saying you don't but listening to other general opinions. It's a deal to carry us through the transitional period which, I assumed, everyone knew would take some time to implement the final severance. It's not a final deal for things like a trade agreement, our own laws being transferred under our parliament rather than as we do now, agreeing to implement the EU laws etc. and the biggest one of all the border in NI. A lot of people think that what is being discussed now is the final deal on these things, especially the trade agreements and the anti brexit people are vocal in suggesting they are. The number of people I've heard that think we're going to be paying through the nose on tariff until the year dot is shocking.Of course we're not. The trade agreement will be a new one with the EU in the same way as we will have a trade agreement with any other country when we leave. It's quite possible that there won't be any difference to the agreement we have now in that we don't have a tariff between us and the EU in the future.But until we leave part of the deal is we carry on as we are now during the transitional period until such time during the transition period we broker a new trade agreement. It's the same with many of the laws we have. At the moment we have adopted EU laws, they all need to be re-worded and passed through parliament to be UK only laws.There's nothing to suggest that those laws will be any different after we leave but we have to have a deal with the EU during the transition period that allows us to still use those laws under the conditions and wording we agreed to them until such time that ours are in place. I really don't know how they are going to sort the NI border out, I really don't. But I also feel that we shouldn't be held to ransom to stay because of the disagreement.I don;t know the answer. So it's a devil and the deep blue sea situation. Yes, it would be the best thing to do, to leave with a deal covering the transitional period, but the way things are now with some of the MP's prepared to vote against anything that they come up with without even knowing what they're voting for, we're never going to get there, that was my point. They don't know what is in the " new" deal so how can they vote against something they have no knowledge of? That is what makes me believe that whatever they bring to the table it will be a no go. They've already made their minds up. Whether we agree whether the initial question was right or wrong now, why didn't all these people bring it up at the time? It was changed once as it was ambiguous. That was the time to bring it up but not one of the anti brexit MP's said a word at the time. If they can't even do the brexit deal, I don't see how doing the ultimate bilateral trade/customs/migrations deals w/the EU is going to be any better/different. We're more than capable of brokering trade deals with any country including the EU. We have immigration laws that work well for non EU countries so there is no reason to think that they won't do so in exactly the same way with EU citizens in the future. The EU does not control our immigration laws in respect of non EU citizens and never have done. We are only tied to the EU in respect of EU citizens freedom of movement to which we signed a treaty for.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 16:03:49 GMT
WaPo on new proposed deal: "Under the deal — which focuses mostly on the split from the E.U., not on how the two sides will work together in the future — Britain would leave the bloc but would continue to apply E.U. rules until the end of 2020. E.U. and British negotiators would try to hammer out a trade deal and other elements of their future relationship in the meantime. The transition period could be extended up to two years if both sides agree.... The deal suggests a harder break than ever envisaged by May, with Britain potentially taking a sharply different line on trade, taxes and regulations. May’s plans would have left Britain tightly integrated with the E.U. Under Johnson’s plan, only Northern Ireland is committed to remaining largely aligned with the bloc, at least for now, even though it is leaving the E.U. along with the rest of the United Kingdom.... Elements of the new deal crossed red lines that previous British leaders ruled out. British authorities will have to conduct customs checks in the Irish Sea for goods moving inside their own country, as Northern Ireland would remain locked into most E.U. regulations and trade rules. But the E.U. also made significant concessions that it had previously said were impossible. After four years, Northern Ireland lawmakers would have a vote on whether they wanted to stay so closely aligned with the European Union. If they decline, that would likely require a hard border, something the E.U. had previously refused to countenance. And Northern Ireland’s tax rules could be different enough from Europe’s that some leaders fear they could lead to smuggling and other attempts to exploit the situation." www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/brexit-deal-falters-raising-chances-british-leader-boris-johnson-will-have-to-ask-for-delay/2019/10/17/f1ce287e-f049-11e9-bb7e-d2026ee0c199_story.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 15:05:42 GMT
"U.K. lawmakers have voted to amend a crucial Brexit vote which now forces the government to seek an extension to the deadline and delays full approval. The amendment, introduced by former Conservative lawmaker Oliver Letwin, withholds approval of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement with the European Union until legislation is in place, and was passed 322 to 306. The move automatically triggers the "Benn Act" which forces the prime minister to request a further extension to the October 31 deadline until January 31.... The Withdrawal Agreement Bill will be introduced in the House of Commons early next week and would potentially mean a vote on Tuesday evening on what is termed the "second reading," the initial stage of a passage of bill through the House of Commons. Should it pass, this would be the first time the House has passed any bill relating to Brexit. Should it then ascend to the House of Lords, parliament's upper chamber, and pass before the deadline, there is still a possibility that the U.K. leaves the EU on October 31." www.cnbc.com/2019/10/19/uk-lawmakers-back-a-change-to-brexit-vote-which-delays-full-approval-and-forces-deadline-extension.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 17:36:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:12:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 21:00:32 GMT
|
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,760
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Oct 19, 2019 21:09:16 GMT
But it's reported he won't sign it...??!! Schoolboy
|
|