Let’s be clear: No deal is better than a bad deal.
– Richard Tice, discussing Brexit.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySeptember 18th, 2016 |
 14 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Agree completely. Better to end the two year period without any deal at all, than kowtow to Brussels in ways contrary to the national interest
This is very true. One hopes May et al have grasped it.
Ben Kelly says it would be crazy. This stuff is complicated.
Ann Althouse likes to say “Better than nothing is a high standard.”
Bugger Article 50. The Italian chap who wrote the clause has said that is designed never to be used. Just repeal The European Community Act 1972. Then we can trade with whoever we like, without all the restrictive baggage the EU bastards will want to shackle us to.
The British domestic market and our trade with third parties must NOT be subject to E.U. regulations.
Otherwise we will be in the E.U. (i.e. subject to its laws) in all but name.
The “Single Market” is a trap.
If the British government accept it then we have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
And the Economist magazine (and our other enemies) will gloat.
So the Poles and other Eastern members of the EU will “veto” any deal which limits their ability to send vast numbers of people into the UK and Germany will use it’s muscle to “veto” any deal which threatens its trade with the UK.
Any deal requiring continued immigration from the European Union is a poisoned chalice and would only serve to continue the split on Europe that has divided both the Conservatives and to a lesser extent Labour for decades.
Far better than accepting a Mephistophelian pact with the devil is to lay down a tariff-free, quota-free trade deal with the European Union on the table and walk away.
Let the 2-years time out with trade being the only deal on the table.
At the end of the 2-years, repeal the The European Community Act 1972 as RAB says along with all associated European Union legislation, replacing it with UK legislation only where necessary (i.e. NOT status quo replacement of all EU legislation with UK legislation).
As for movement of people for work, we had this in a controlled manner before 1992, so either re-implement the policies we had then, come up with new controls in the form of points based immigration or come up with another way of achieving the same ends.
Fundamentally immigration has to be brought under control and I for one would rather give preferential treatment to the Anglosphere and Western Europe than the European Union as a whole.
I don’t quite understand the Eastern nation’s position on this… Sure if they veto deals, the danger is that Article 50 will ‘time out’ and hey will have no migration rights at all?
It’s a bit like a game of chicken. The Eastern European’s expect Germany to do a deal to retain UK trade and effectively stitch-up the Eastern European’s over free-movement, so they’re just getting their 2 cents worth in now saying they will “veto” (in reality QMV I believe) any Article 50 deal with the EU that limits free movement.
Nobody expects the 2-year Article 50 negotiations to be allowed to come to an end without a deal being negotiated, but from a UK perspective that might be exactly in our best interests.
No deal (i.e. trading on WTO basis only), is probably a far better starting point than any negotiated settlement with the European Union.
Dear Mr de Havilland
Assuming that nice Mrs May really wants the UK to quit the eu, as the referendum shows the British people do, and does not merely play games while following an agenda of her own, the simplest solution is to invoke Article 50 immediately, thereby starting the clock; repeal the 1972 Act, thereby allowing the government to start unpicking eu regulations affecting the internal workings of the UK, discarding the worst bits first; issue a unilateral declaration of free trade (UDFT) and wait.
If the eu tries to cut up rough, e.g. through a ‘scorched seas’ policy with fishing grounds in UK territorial waters, which I assume will remain an eu common resource until the expiry of the notice, or flood the UK with foreign migrants who have been fast tracked into eu citizenship, the UK will be entitled to take whatever protective measures we see fit.
There are no reasons why Article 50 should not be invoked immediately. Every day that passes without it being invoked calls Mrs May’s good faith into question.
I dare say things are more complicated than that, but considerably less complicated than our beloved government’s bureaucrats would like to make them.
If the government MPs won’t play ball, an early election should be called.
The by-election in that nice Mr Cameron’s old seat would be a great opportunity for the electorate of all colours to give the Conservatives a right kicking, just to show them we really mean business. A UKIP victory would be perfect, but whittling down the majority to three and a half votes would be OK too.
DP
In the UK, the financial year runs from April to March but one of the many ways in which European nations do things in a bizarre way is that some of them have a financial year that starts in January and ends in December (weird! 🙂 ). It is just possible that the rumoured “Article 50 in February” date makes sense as being closest to the mutual ending of financial years.
(That said, I agree with DP (September 19, 2016 at 5:37 pm) that it might help if the by-election in Cameron’s seat sent a strong reminder that Brexit means Brexit and/or the upcoming Tory conference sees the members spell that out in emphatic detail.)
It is also the case that work expands to fill the available time. Delaying till February next year merely makes it likely we’ll leave the EU in February 2019, not earlier, despite its being easy to complete all the arrangements earlier.
If Theresa May plans to repeal the fixed-term act and hold the next general election after we’ve left the EU, but not long after, then February 2019 may look like a convenient date politically. But while I expect that act will be repealed now the coalition is over (and think it should be), she may delay doing so till she has a larger majority and/or wish to hang-on till the last moment without looking like she is choosing to. But maybe she plans to repeal it in this parliament.
I concur.
The EU’s demise may precede Brexit due to any of a multiple of foreseeable problems (Italian debt dominoing onto Deutschbank collapse, instability in Turkey, Southern or central European rebellion against Germany) or black swans, in which case everything will be on the table by which time Teresa May (or may not) have worked out what the UK’s best interests are.
I repeat – the issue is whether or not E.U. regulations will continue to apply to our domestic affairs and to our trade with third parties.