They will not. For starters they know that they have a valuable asset: their consent. And other than that they will not feel the need for speedy ratification.
Congratulations America
No more cakeism.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rade-proposals
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Pretty interesting article on massive discrepancies in trade statistics for services, where the UK is either vastly underestimating the value of service imports or other countries are overestimating the value of the services they export to the UK:
https://www.ft.com/content/9f1d7ad2-...1-e5de165fa619
Still waiting to hear from experts but given that other many other countries have more robust reporting/data collection strategies, I think it's more likely that the UK has been underestimating its services imports.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...t-brexit-deal/
The EU has negotiated an agreement with Singapore, pending ratification, while negotiations between EU and Australia are going to start very soon. Someone should give him a heads up.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Anyone have the full access to this article?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i...-fox-b22w97jt7
So Barnier says there might be a Brexit deal and the Pound jumps ? LOL
Congratulations America
As happened through the whole referendum campaign. Any time it looked like leave might be winning it went one way, when it looked like remain was it went the other. When the polls mistakenly said remain had won it shot up only to revert immediately and dramatically.
Why would any of this be surprising?
It's not surprising, it's interesting, because the movements are so swift and so dramatic. They likely reflect views about the various outcomes of the negotiations, which have now become much more clear than they were during the ref. campaign and, well, the two years that followed.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Still funny that a man in service of the EU can make the currency of the UK jump up and down with a single utterance.
By the way, 200 days to go. That's a nice round number. Can't wait for the moment it switches to 0
Congratulations America
Oh my God the ERG-endorsed "Economists for Brexit" paper is so hilariously bad.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Because it doesn't parrot the line that we will be immediately harmed when weleave the ERM/don't join the Euro/rule out Euro membership/hold an EU referendum/immediately after voting to leave/after invoking Article 50/if we leave in a way that is not leaving in name only?
No, because it's full of misconceptions/lies about laws & rules & EU tariffs as well as internal inconsistencies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidHeni...08952877170690
https://mobile.twitter.com/Coppetain...43335507795968
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/...t-the-economy/
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/...17412365275136
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/...37926408282112
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Randy, how come you think that what happened after not changing anything is a good template to predict what will happen after you change pretty much everything?
Congratulations America
Because contrary to popular misbelief (peddled by both sides of this debate) we will not be changing everything.
There is a big wide world out there. You and I have both lived both in and out of the EU. You maybe in a developing nation outside the EU but I grew up in a successful nation outperforming the EU consistently.
Remember a while back you made a big hoo-haa about Vote Leave being found guilty of overspending expenses by the Electoral Commission? I said immediately it was the Electoral Commission itself that was at fault.
Today the court has found it was the Electoral Commission that was responsible for the advice it gave during the referendum campaign, which Vote Leave [quite reasonably] acted upon. Despite the Commission trying to mislead people at the start of the case claiming no such advice was given.
Lots of damning quotes in the links.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676When the ‘Good Law Project’ questioned Vote Leave’s donations to BeLeave on social media after the referendum, our Campaign Director Dominic Cummings tweeted that we had received permission from the Electoral Commission to make them. The Commission were issued with a Freedom of Information Request to release the advice they had given Vote Leave, but they failed to disclose it. This led to the following exchange between the Judge, Lord Justice Leggatt, and the Commission’s QC, Richard Gordon, at the Preliminary Hearing in March. It includes an intervention by Jessica Simor QC for the ‘Good Law Project’. This is an extract from the verbatim court transcript:
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT: Why do you say at para.53 of your summary grounds that, as far as the Electoral Commission was aware, no such advice was ever given?
MR GORDON: Well, because we had assumed that the ground against us (see para.60 of the grounds) was a direct challenge to the advice that we were supposed to have given in writing to Mr Cummings or to Vote Leave, and we have not given advice in writing.
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT: Is an email not writing?
MR GORDON: Well, my Lord, that is not advice in the sense that…
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT: Oh, Mr Gordon.
MR GORDON: No, my Lord, what I’m attempting to do is to say, first of all, if we have misinterpreted the ground against us, that’s one thing; but we have made disclosure of the relevant document. That is the point.
MS SIMOR: May I ask, I have never seen it in any… we’ve never had it disclosed (inaudible) FOIA request.
MR GORDON: That’s fine, but it was disclosed, I’m told… as I say, I’ve taken very careful instructions… under the Freedom of Information Act request that we have been… that had been made to us. Now, if it hasn’t been for any reason, that is certainly not due to any disingenuousness on the part of the Commission.
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT: But what was the basis for the statement in the Commission’s grounds that, as far as it was aware, no advice had been given to Vote Leave that it could lawfully make a donation?
MR GORDON: Well, rightly or wrongly, we have interpreted that as meaning advice that you can go ahead and do specifically what you have done in this case.
The judgement from the Preliminary Hearing rightly included a stinging rebuke to the Electoral Commission for their lack of transparency, and also concluded that Vote Leave’s interpretation and application of their advice was reasonable:
44. We agree with Ms Simor that the supply of services is analogous to the supply of materials. The advice given to Vote Leave in the email dated 20 May 2016 was thus consistent with the view which the Commission has taken at all relevant times and is maintaining in these proceedings. That being so, it seems to us that, in asserting that it had never given advice that Vote Leave could lawfully make the donation it did, the Commission was making a statement which, though literally true, was misleading. It was true that the Commission had not given advice to Vote Leave that the specific payments to AIQ would not need to be reported as referendum expenses. But the Commission had given advice to Vote Leave which, when applied to the payments to AIQ, carried that clear implication (provided there was no common plan). The fact that the Commission had posted the email of 20 May 2016 on its website in response to a request for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act made by someone other than the claimant is nothing to the point, when the first time that the Commission drew attention to that fact in these proceedings was at the permission hearing.
https://brexitcentral.com/electoral-...court-matters/
You chose to forget the part where the court says the consent of the commission was in breech of the law?
Congratulations America
No. I'm explicitly saying that the Commission gave dud advice that broke the law. Considering the Commission was the relevant party that was set up to give out advice and implement the law, the Commission is here entirely responsible for giving out illegal advice. Not those that followed the Commission's advice which is a reasonable act.
Normally ignorance is no defence under the law, but where you follow due diligence by following the advice of the organisation set up by statute to implement the law then that is different. Especially given the crime here requires intent to break the law and there can't be intent to break the law if you are following the Commission's advice that your actions are legal.
The Electoral Commission needs to give clear and lawful advice for future elections. Not try and attack those who have followed its unlawful advice and then deny at first that it ever gave said advice.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
My biggest fear in this whole Brexit circus is that at some point remoaners manage to reverse Brexit before the UK is really out.
Congratulations America
It's too late.
That can only be done plausibly by referendum . . . and a referendum can only be done by an Act of Parliament . . . and realistically an Act of Parliament can only be gotten through with the government's backing . . . and then it will take 3 months to have a referendum.
Working forwards the earliest a deal will be reached (or less likely known not to be) is November. Once it is agreed it will then go to Parliament for approval. That process will take about a month and so be completed in December. If rebel MPs tried to enforce an a referendum amendment onto the bill to approve the deal then that would be opposed by the government and delay things but even if it went through the very, very earliest that can go through is December. It takes a minimum of three months to organise a referendum which takes us to March. After the referendum it would take time (and a further Act of Parliament) to act on its results - but we are exiting in March. Time's up.
Realistically a referendum would have had to be approved months ago in order to reverse Brexit.
More likely any reversal would only happen if it was a case of exiting to transition and then reversing the exit from the transition but that's not very likely at all.