When you read what Parliament approved it was that we leave the EU with No Deal with the EU. That is what MPs voted for.
The only circumstances where it would be different from that would be if the EU itself came up with something better than WTO terms which, as you know, accounts for over 90 % of all global trade.
So the vote to enact Article 50, which received royal assent on 16 March 2017, meant it is WTO terms we will be enjoying as of 11pm UK time on Friday, 29th March 2019.
Unless the EU, not the UK, comes up with
something demonstrably better than WTO terms and to fulfil the mandate given by the people to Parliament, does not hold us to rules or
overseen by any EU institution such as the ECJ, leave with the WTO deal that is
on the table we must. MPs voted for it. And as David Colins, Professor of Internatinal Economic Law at City Universtiy Lonndon explains in an article entilted, Why a no-deal Brexit is nothing to fear: A viable alternative to an EU trade deal is
ready and waiting. "With the WTO option as an entirely acceptable,
workable alternative to a trade deal, the UK is truly in a position to walk
away. And that’s a good place to be."
So why is it the UK that is scrabbling around trying to cobble a deal together at the last minute? No, I don't know either.
2 comments:
It would be nice if some of the more competent MPs would drive home the point that No Deal is not a no-deal. No Deal is purely that we walk away with all the current EU legislation, quality regulations, procedures etc all in place -we passed an Act straight after the Referendum to make sure we started off in alignment. Therefore No Deal is no problem, no big deal.
The point of No Deal is that on 30th March 2019, we can start re-writing, throwing out, or even write new legislation, all by ourselves. -and what's not to like about that.
Does nobody want to ask Dominic Grieve why he doesn't want UK parliamentary sovereignity?
If the Government does not honour the Referendum result and fails to deliver Brexit then the Government ceases to have any legitimacy. They reprsent us. ANd take decisions on our behalf. But this time they said to the people, this is too important for us to take the decision on your behalf. YOU decide. You take the decision. So we did. And they didn't like the answer. So try and overturn it.
Post a Comment