Government asked by Justine Greening MP about procedure for Article 50 extension – News from Parliament – UK Parliament

The Link below takes you to the HoC page where this urgent question will be taken about 5.30pm on Tuesday 19 March

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/march/government-asked-about-article-50-period-extension-procedure/

DEADLINE 29 MARCH 2019 

REJECT THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT 

What a mess this BREXIT negotiations has become. Should I conclude that the government, MP’s and the civil service just want this to go away and abdicate our sovereignty to the EU.

Reason – they don’t know what to do

We should not allow the HoC to change the will of the people

17.4m people voted to Leave the EU

We British are brave, determined, resourceful and innovative 

The UK is the 5th largest world economy

The UK has a permanent Seat on the United Nations Security Council

We are not a push over but the way the negotiations with the EU have been conducted I must conclude we have been so far let down by weak negotiating tactics

The EU Withdrawal Agreement ties the UK into complying with Union (EU) Law, Regulations, Directives, Decisions and European Court of Justice rulings. Complying with all standards and rules on goods and services, immigration policy, security and foreign policy. Complying with tax rules, especially VAT, and any other legislation currently in being but also any new EU proposals during the implementation period. We will possibly be able to negotiate FTA’s with Third countries but only on EU terms (these will be unacceptable to those third countries) and unacceptable to the people of the United Kingdom

To make matters worse the Withdrawal Agreement will continue to apply until the future relationship between the UK / EU is concluded. To withdraw from the WA requires a positive decision jointly by both the UK and the EU

This has nothing to do with the Northern Ireland / Ireland backstop, that is but a political consequence of the Agreement

My past experience tells me that the future relationship between the UK and the EU will take years to conclude. Our demand to be a sovereign nation able to democratically control all the above will not be possible because it has to be a joint decision to put aside the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement. Think about that – the UK is the 5th largest economy in the world with a permanent Seat on the UN Security Council yet here we are looking to cede our sovereignty. (Start saying goodbye to the UN Security Seat). 

The UK should set out exactly what is required in the process of developing our future relationship. This Withdrawal Agreement is not good enough and it should be rejected

I will repeat – this Withdrawal Agreement was composed by the European Commission, it has footnotes referring to EU Regulations and Directives. It is a legally binding Treaty under Union (EU) Law overseen by the ECJ. It has been drawn up to protect the EU

TELL ME who on earth agreed to this Withdrawal Agreement 

17.4m people in the UK voted in a referendum to LEAVE

No involvement with the EU Internal (single) Market

No involvement with the EU Customs Union

Not under the rulings of the ECJ

MAKING OUR OWN LAWS

Yet here we are and nothing has changed and without knowing what – if any – the future relationship between the UK / EU will be. 

In addition we agree to pay £39bn to the EU.

SURELY THIS IS A JOKE.

On this Blog Article 4 has been highlighted just to illustrate that all the above is factual. It has been mentioned extensively by Sir Bill Cash MP during the HoC debates

I will repeat Article 4 below

The Prime Minister (the government) lost the vote on the proposed Withdrawal Agreement by 230 votes, that should have been the end of it. No more negotiations with the EU unless the Brady Alternative Arrangements were adopted. Certainly no Article 4, include a unilateral get out clause and no payment of the £39bn until we know exactly what the future relationship will be.

Those MP’s who are continuing to want to remain in the EU, who want to support an extension of Article 50, pay up the £39bn, take “No Deal” off the table and comply with Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement really need to consider their position since this will be a complete betrayal of the GE Manifesto of 2017 where both Conservative and Labour promised to honour the 2016 Referendum

Nobody in their right mind would support all the above during a negotiation unless of course they have never ever entered into a negotiation – which sadly I believe is the status of many of our Members of Parliament.

READ ARTICLE 4 Set out below

Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community

14 November 2018

ARTICLE 4

Methods and principles relating to the effect,

The implementation and the application of this Agreement

1. The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.

Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions contained or referred to in this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.

2. The United Kingdom shall ensure compliance with paragraph 1, including as regards the required powers of its judicial and administrative authorities to disapply inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions, through domestic primary .

3. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the methods and general principles of Union law.

4. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period.

5. In the interpretation and application of this Agreement, the United Kingdom’s judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The HoC should Vote against the Withdrawal Agreement this week and immediately enter into negotiations for a non tariff Free Trade Agreement. We don’t need a Withdrawal Agreement if our word is to be believed and trusted. 

We should Leave the EU on 29 March 2019 and conduct trade under WTO terms (we already do so with other Third countries). That will concentrate the minds of the European Commission and the government’s of the 27 EU member states

Why are we allowing ourselves to fall into a Withdrawal Agreement that, in effect, penalises us to remaining under Union Law – certainly during the transition / implementation period but thereafter if the future relationship between the UK / EU has not been agreed.

Unless there is a deadline under which the UK can unilaterally withdraw from the WA we could be trapped under EU (Union) Law for decades. It appears the EU will never agree to that

TIME FOR SOME STRAIGHT TALKING

Those Ministers who want to openly remain in the EU should declare their intention and should resign. 

WE NEED TO LEAVE THIS EUROPEAN UNION NOW NOT IN TWO YEARS TIME

This sets out what I have been saying about the whole of these BREXIT negotiations. Both the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration have been composed by the Commission (including the footnote references to EU legislative Directives etc.). To come up with these texts it has taken months of deliberation, crawled all over by the Legal Services of the Commission, Council and European Parliament. Remember both these documents are covered by Union Law

EU asks what the UK wants

ANSWER – To Leave the EU

WE HAVE A PLAN 

OPINION

My view is that Theresa May needs to understand that the Withdrawal Agreement is not acceptable and we as a nation should tell the EU that we are not going to be trapped by an EU written document which is binding under European Union Law. It should NEVER have been signed in December 2018 without a detailed scrutiny by the HoC.

Instead the UK government should be clear that we will exit the EU on 29 March 2019 on WTO terms but we will be prepared to enter a declaration that we will for a period of 12 months continue to align all UK legislation with the EU and also align trading standards for goods and (some) services. This could be covered by initiating the GATT Article 24 but with a pre determined end deadline.

During this 12 month period we will negotiate a Free Trade Agreement between the UK / EU – based on a non tariff, mutual recognition process. This would cover the movement of goods and services between NI and Ireland and arrangements for the movement of workers.

The draft FTA set out below could form the basis of that negotiation 

That will test the resolve of the EU to honour what they have been saying and disprove that the Withdrawal Agreement is indeed not a trap to keep the UK tied up under Union Law. (It is for that reason that the Malthouse Compromise must be clear and NOT imply a 10 year transition period with the EU as against a period under GATT Article 24.

The UK should Leave the EU on 29/03/2019 and become a truly sovereign state. A Third country to the EU and vice versa. 

Able to negotiate our own FTA’s with Third Country states (including the EU member states facilitated by the Commission)

The argument that we should not Leave the EU without a deal will be countered by offering the draft FTA

EXITING the EU and honouring the Referendum is a major item of democratic legitimacy which must be upheld. 

Leaving on the 29/03/2019 will honour that decision

We must be aware that EU member states need a future relationship with the UK 

 EU says it will not renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement – Calling bluff time

The reaction from the EU President Tusk of the Council and President Junker of the Commission continues the line that the EU Withdrawal Agreement is not open for renegotiation.

Remember this document was composed by the EU Commission under Union Law.

Remember too the House of Commons rejected this Withdrawal Agreement by a majority of 230. The HoC then adopted an amendment which called for the so called “backstop” in respect of maintaining an open border to be replaced by “Alternative Arrangements”

We don’t hear on our TV’  much about any draft FTA nor the Malthouse Compromise but they are an attempt to offer Alternative Arrangements and the UK electorate should have access and understand what is being considered

Sadly Theresa May seems to think she can get some slight amendments to the backstop and everything will fall into place. If that happens and the decision of the 17.4m who voted to Leave, no Customs Union, no single market, no ECJ and control of our immigration, laws, taxes and money then the democratic legitimacy of our Parliament will be in tatters 

What do MP’s think they are doing

The backstop issue is but one subject on which the Withdrawal Agreement needs to be replaced and therefore the Withdrawal Agreement should be abandoned and a totally new text should be proposed by the UK government that does not potentially tie us into a bad scheme in perpetuity 

8 Major failings in the Withdrawal Agreement 

What is wrong with the Withdrawal Agreement compiled by Get Britain Out is worth a read

https://getbritainout.org/whats-wrong-with-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-8-major-failings-of-mays-deal/

The Malthouse Compromise 

The Malthouse Compromise should be considered but not in any way tying the UK into a formal relationship with the EU for a further 10 years. Imposing a 10 year period could prevent the break that is needed. Instead using GATT Article 24

The Options of the Malthouse Compromise are set out in an article below but can be viewed at this link

https://brexitcentral.com/malthouse-compromise-explained/

Information about the GATT Article 24

It is argued that Exiting the EU on WTO terms and initiating GATT Article 24 would allow zero tariff rates during the interim period of negotiating a FTA. The question is whether the EU would agree to that. My view is that the EU need a deal.

This link to a HoC Briefing might provide information about the GATT Article 24 process

 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/

 A Draft Free Trade Agreement 

We have the publication of  draft Free Trade Agreement which is our ultimate objective as a relationship between the UK and the EU. This is being promoted by some senior political figures

That can be read at the following link and depending on your reading concentration gives you various options

https://competere.co.uk/uk-eu-fta

Government Needs to Honour the Referendum – Be Positive and Robust

The UK government needs to be more positive in its BREXIT negotiations and stop trying to play one group off against another. They need to understand we have a long standing process of democracy with freedom of speech AND once a vote is taken we have to abide by that decision- no messing about – no undermining that process