How to know if we have a good deal on Brexit

No deal with the EU is way better than much of what is being touted right now. The reality is that it is massively in the EU's interests that they have a good deal for Brexit. In order to overcome some of their delusional nonsense we just have to make it crystal clear we really will walk away if they keep on acting up

Fly the flag for a good deal

John Redwood MP

On 31 October 2017 12:04

The best way for the government to negotiate from here with the EU is to remind them what No deal does for us, and then ask what they would prefer to that No Deal. An Agreement needs to be better than No Deal for them and for us.

No Deal ticks four of the five boxes to provide us with a good deal.

** It means we pay them no money over the legal requirments for regular contributions up to departure in March 2019.

** It means from March 2019 we can make our own laws, with the ECJ no longer having any sway over our legal system which will be under the control of the UK Supreme Court.

** It means we will regain control of our fishing grounds and territorial waters

** We can set out our own borders and migration policy with a system which is fair for the whole world

The only box it does not tick is our preference to have a full free trade Agreement with the EU instead of relying on WTO terms and rules.

If the EU understands our intent to leave without an Agreement, it is still possible – as it is massively in their interest – that they will want to take up our offer of free trade as well.

Related

• History will not be kind to the "broken people" of Remain
• Brexit Britain needs more grammar schools
• How no Brexit deal really can work, and why it matters
• UK government must get serious about No Brexit deal

The Deals which some in the UK and on the continent are sketching do not do as well as the No Deal/WTO option. They often envisage large sums in payment to the EU after we have left in March 2019 which would be unacceptable to many UK voters.

They seek to keep some EU involvement in our law making, with a continuing role for the ECJ. They do not immediately restore either our fishing grounds or control over our borders. They may offer tariff free trade in goods, or go further and offer a service sector package as well.

Many versions of this kind of Deal would be a bad deal. The Prime Minister is right to be positive, warm and enthusiastic about a more all embracing Agreement, with the UK continuing to make an important contribution to Intelligence, security, defence culture and much else besides.

She is offering a full free trade agreement in goods and services. She has hinted that for a good deal she would consider an Implementation period where the UK might make further financial contributions and accept some temporary joint or independent influence over our courts and laws.

If the government goes beyond this it soon reaches the territory of a bad deal which many people in the UK will not accept. We voted to leave.

We do not want a full two years further delay after March 2019, we do not want to pay them large sums of money beyond the £30 bn leaving present we are giving by paying full contributions during the waiting period to exit and we do not want to still be unable to take back control 2 years nine months after the vote.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6685/how_to_know_if_we_have_a_good_deal_on_brexit

BREXIT: The vital importance of the Great Repeal Bill

The Great Repeal Bill, also known as The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, is a vital step in recovering Britain's sovereignty. Opportunists and anti-democratic opponents of Brexit are therefore trying to stop it in its tracks. They must not succeed

Joseph Hackett

On 14 July 2017 03:27

Why it must come back to Westminster

The Great Repeal Bill -- now renamed the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for procedural reasons -- has finally landed. Even before its publication, Labour had threatened to vote against the Bill unless they received ‘concessions’, and pro-EU MPs and peers have insisted this be their last stand.

What, then, does the Bill actually do, and why has it upset so many Remainers?

The fundamental role of the legislation is to co-opt into domestic law the vast amount of EU law which has accumulated over the last 44 years. What is an EU regulation today will become a UK regulation the day we leave.

This should be uncontroversial – by ensuring we are not left with huge gaps in legislation the day we leave, it paves the way for a smooth Brexit.

One piece of EU law which will not be transferred into British law is the Charter of Fundamental Rights – a decision which Labour and the Liberal Democrats are taking as justification for opposing the Bill.

However, they are posturing. The Charter of Fundamental Rights mostly transfers into EU law the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a treaty on human rights which predates, and is separate to, the EU. The Government has no plans to leave the ECHR, so its provisions will continue to apply anyway.

In fact, the Human Rights Act already transfers the ECHR’s provisions into UK law, so the Charter of Fundamental Rights would largely be a duplicate.

There are a few other provisions in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (for instance, it enshrines the right of EU citizens to stand for the European Parliament – a provision which would obviously become obsolete if transplanted into UK law after Brexit), but its removal will not be the assault on human rights Labour Remainers are making it out to be, as virtually all its provisions are already enshrined in domestic law.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will also deal with the 44 years’ worth of case law from European courts which has influenced UK law. This case law will, like EU legislation, remain on the books, since if past EU court rulings were rendered null and void, it would create legal chaos.

However, UK courts will no longer be bound by the precedent of the EU courts. The supremacy of EU law and EU courts will end the day we leave.

One slight problem with all this is that vast amounts of EU and domestic law refers in some crucial way to the EU or one of its institutions. Failure to amend these laws to remove those references and replace them with references to British institutions could also create chaos.

As a result, the The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill allows the Government to change legislation to allow it to function effectively, remove redundancies, and remove obsolete references to our EU membership.

It will be able to do this by statutory instrument, a mechanism which allows the Government to pass or amend legislation without a vote in Parliament.

These are the so-called ‘Henry VIII powers’, which Labour, in particular, have denounced as a power grab. They are, however, necessary to quickly prepare our laws for post-Brexit Britain.

Constant Parliamentary battles over minor tweaks to legislation would benefit nobody. The Government’s powers are also limited. They cannot raise taxes, create new criminal offences, make retrospective provisions, implement the final Brexit deal by the backdoor, or impinge upon the Human Rights Act or the Good Friday Agreement. The powers will also expire two years after we leave.

It is also worth noting the Government routinely passes legislation by statutory instrument. 709 have been passed so far this year, including temporary flying restrictions over terrorist attack sites, and amendments to drug laws to cover new drugs similar to those which have already been banned.

The Coalition Government was particularly fond of them, passing 3,485 in 2014. Labour can hardly complain about them either. During their time in office, they passed between 1,664 and 2,285 statutory instruments every year.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is a crucial piece of legislation, and it must be able to pass allowing plenty of time before we Get Britain Out of the EU.

The loss of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is no loss for the state of human rights in this country, since its provisions are virtually all already part of British law. Meanwhile, Labour’s leadership may complain about ‘Henry VIII powers’, but they have yet to explain what alternative protocol could deliver the necessary tweaks quickly enough.

It must be asked to what extent the Labour leadership’s opposition to this legislation is principled, and to what extent it is based on a desire to pander to their pro-EU voters, destabilise the Government, and make the Brexit process longer and more difficult.

It is time for all parties to put the national interest ahead of politics, and approve this necessary piece of legislation.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6621/brexit_the_vital_importance_of_the_great_repeal_bill

Analysis: Why High Court got Brexit decision wrong

UPDATED: In its controversial ruling on Brexit, the HIgh Court misunderstood the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the status that parliament had granted to the referendum. This ruling can and must be overturned. Here's how

Tipping the scales back to Brexit

the commentator

On 4 November 2016 08:35

On Thursday, the High Court in London ruled that parliament, not the government, must have the final say in triggering Britain's exit from the European Union following the June 23 referendum.

Having read the ruling in full, we believe that it is fundamentally flawed, and that it can and should be overturned in the Supreme Court.

In a nutshell, the High Court ruled the way that it did because it held that the most fundamental principle of British constitutional democracy and the rule of law was "parliamentary sovereignty". While government can act independently on matters of international law -- treaties for example -- power remains inside Parliament where matters of domestic importance are concerned.

Since membership of the European Union has major implications for domestic rights and laws, only parliament can make the final decision on whether to leave or whether to stay.

It is when the ruling comes to the question of the referendum and its meaning that we see how deeply flawed this judgement is, and also how the government put the wrong case to the court.

Paragraph 150 states that counsel for the Secretary of State (ie the government) "did not contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. He was right not to do so."

In the following paragraphs, the High Court said that this referendum (like any other) was only advisory to parliament "unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation.."

In addition, a briefing paper to parliament made clear that the referendum was only advisory. In any event, there would be so many issues to resolve about the process of withdrawal that parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was merely advisory.

It is on this question that everything else turned, and it appears that the government dropped the ball. Here's why.

First, while the 2015 Referendum Act did not specifically state that the referendum was binding, the purpose of the referendum was billed by all sides as the place at which the decision on Britain's membership of the European Union would be made. There would have been no point in calling a referendum if its result was not intended to be respected. The government could have hired focus groups.

The High Court missed the point here.

Second, the referendum does not contradict the principle of parliamentary sovereignty since it was parliament itself that passed the bill enabling the referendum to take place. Parliament transferred its power to the people so that they could make a decision on parliament's behalf. This was clearly understood at the time. The HIgh Court missed the point on this too.

Third, in invoking the briefing paper --  European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16, House of Commons Library -- the High Court refers to a paper that in one crucial respect undermines its own ruling.

This is from the section entitled, Types of Referendum:

"It [the referendum] does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

See what the High Court got wrong? The wording does not say that the result of the referendum is designed to influence parliament, it says it is designed to influence "the Government".

The reason why it says that is that it was widely understood that parliament had indeed transferred its sovereignty to the people, and that it would then be up to the government (ie. not parliament) to take the process further, and implement the will of the people.

If the government takes this argument to the Supreme Court, it has a realistic chance of winning, and putting Britain back on track for Brexit.

UPDATE: Here is another excellent point raised by the Telegraph:

"Into this constitutional quagmire the High Court unwisely strayed this week, ruling that the Government did not have the power to use the Royal Prerogative to trigger the process to leave the European Union. Yet it is also long established in legal precedent that the courts do not have the power to order Parliament to introduce and pass a Bill, which appears to be the upshot of the judges’ decision on Wednesday. This is a stand-off which the Supreme Court would do well to resolve by overturning the lower court’s ruling next month".

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6425/analysis_why_high_court_got_brexit_decision_wrong

UK High Court in direct attack on democracy over Brexit

UPDATED: We believe High Court should be held to account by Supreme Court for crony-style corruption. The High Court has launched a direct assault on the people of Britain by ruling that their Brexit referendum vote is invalid without Parliamentary approval. Will the people rise up against this legally nonsensical decision?

Who flies the flag for democracy?

the commentator

On 3 November 2016 10:52

UPDATED: The High Court has ruled that democracy must not be allowed to prevail without elite sanction. That is the only rational conclusion following Thursday's ruling that the June 23 Brexit vote has no meaning unless sanctioned by a vote in Parliament.

We do not accuse the High Court of having taken bribes. However, judges have friends/family/business partners, within the crony system. Within that crony system, support mechanisms are clear, and, in our opinion, corrupt.

The High Court, in our honest opinion, has attacked British democracy in a way that disgraces the British state, and the rule of law.

The Guardian, a news outlet which routinely mocks the people as bigots and xenophobes, reported, gleefully:

"Unless overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court, the ruling threatens to plunge the government’s plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control."

The paper further reported:

"The lord chief justice said that, 'the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign”'.

This is nonsensical. The referendum was approved by Parliament.

While The Commentator is shocked and appalled by the rise of populists and demagogues it is no wonder that our democracies are in crisis.

This ruling is a direct attack on the people of Britain, and their democracy.

If this disgraceful (and legally idiotic) decision is upheld, civil disobedience should not be ruled out as a possible outcome.

Read more on: brexit

MUST READ: Highlights - May on Brexit, Article 50 and trade

Britain will trigger the formal divorce process from the European Union by the end of March 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Sunday. Following are key parts of May's speech ...

Sun Oct 2, 2016 | 4:39pm BST

Britain will trigger the formal divorce process from the European Union by the end of March 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Sunday.

Following are key parts of May's speech to the Conservative Party Conference.

For news on Brexit, click on [BRXT]

For full coverage click on the Brexit page here

ON BREXIT:

"The referendum result was clear. It was legitimate. It was the biggest vote for change this country has ever known. Brexit means Brexit – and we're going to make a success of it."

"Everything we do as we leave the EU will be consistent with the law and our treaty obligations, and we must give as much certainty as possible to employers and investors. That means there can be no sudden and unilateral withdrawal: we must leave in the way agreed in law by Britain and other member states, and that means invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

"Having voted to leave, I know that the public will soon expect to see, on the horizon, the point at which Britain does formally leave the European Union."

ON ARTICLE 50

"We will invoke Article 50 no later than the end of March next year."

It "is not up to the House of Commons to invoke Article 50, and it is not up to the House of Lords. It is up to the government to trigger Article 50 and the government alone."

"Those people who argue that Article 50 can only be triggered after agreement in both Houses of Parliament are not standing up for democracy, they're trying to subvert it. They're not trying to get Brexit right, they're trying to kill it by delaying it."

ON EU LAW:

"We will soon put before parliament a Great Repeal Bill, which will remove from the statute book – once and for all – the European Communities Act.

"This historic bill – which will be included in the next Queen's Speech – will mean that the 1972 Act, the legislation that gives direct effect to all EU law in Britain, will no longer apply from the date upon which we formally leave the European Union. And its effect will be clear. Our laws will be made not in Brussels but in Westminster. The judges interpreting those laws will sit not in Luxembourg but in courts in this country. The authority of EU law in Britain will end."

"As we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the 'acquis' – that is, the body of existing EU law – into British law. When the Great Repeal Bill is given Royal Assent, parliament will be free – subject to international agreements and treaties with other countries and the EU on matters such as trade – to amend, repeal and improve any law it chooses. But by converting the acquis into British law, we will give businesses and workers maximum certainty as we leave the European Union. 

"The same rules and laws will apply to them after Brexit as they did before. Any changes in the law will have to be subject to full scrutiny and proper Parliamentary debate. And let me be absolutely clear: existing workers' legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law – and they will be guaranteed as long as I am prime minister." 

ON HARD AND SOFT BREXIT:

"There is no such thing as a choice between 'soft Brexit' and 'hard Brexit'. This line of argument – in which 'soft Brexit' amounts to some form of continued EU membership and 'hard Brexit' is a conscious decision to reject trade with Europe – is simply a false dichotomy. And it is one that is too often propagated by people who, I am afraid to say, have still not accepted the result of the referendum."

ON BRITISH RELATIONS WITH EU:

ALSO IN UK

• May to woo Labour voters in pitch for Britain's centre-ground
• UKIP leader Diane James quits after 18 days

"It is not, therefore, a negotiation to establish a relationship anything like the one we have had for the last forty years or more. So it is not going to a 'Norway model'. It’s not going to be a 'Switzerland model'. It is going to be an agreement between an independent, sovereign United Kingdom and the European Union."

ON IMMIGRATION AND EU MARKETS: 

"I know some people ask about the 'trade-off' between controlling immigration and trading with Europe. But that is the wrong way of looking at things. We have voted to leave the European Union and become a fully-independent, sovereign country. We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws."

"I want that deal to reflect the kind of mature, cooperative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy. I want it to include cooperation on law enforcement and counter-terrorism work. I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services. I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market – and let European businesses do the same here. But let me be clear.  We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice."

ON GLOBAL TRADE:

"It was a vote for Britain to stand tall, to believe in ourselves, to forge an ambitious and optimistic new role in the world.

"Countries including Canada, China, India, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea have already told us they would welcome talks on future free trade agreements. And we have already agreed to start scoping discussions on trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-may-speech-idUKKCN1220LQ