Challenging the Benn Act

[Parker231]

Today’s news reports are saying that the Government won’t break the law but won’t ask for an extension. As a deal with the EU doesn’t seem to be happening, Johnson will have to request the extension?

How much of labour’s 40% was attributable to the lie they told students that loans would be scrapped?

In student areas, probably a significant amount. In non-student areas, which is many more areas, it probably didn't gain much traction. Things like cuts in education would have played out more.

Phil Hogan has been named as the EU's new trade commissioner .

He will be the EU's chief trade negotiator if and when free trade negotiations commence between the EU and the UK after Brexit.

Apparently he has a reputation for being a tough deal maker.

Apparently he has a reputation for being a tough deal maker.

He's also Irish which is top trolling by the Europeans.

Wonder if he gets the nickname crocodile dundee and has an assistant called Donk

I like easy to read charts!

Legal challenge is my guess.

What grounds?

If the legal people think they can make money they will think of something

Politically it fits in with the 'saviour of the nation' ego Johnson has for himself. Me against the establishment....

Is the misunderstanding how negotiations work or is it a misunderstanding about the relative strength of the two sides misigri?

What grounds

Coercion and duress.

Is the misunderstanding how negotiations work or is it a misunderstanding about the relative strength of the two sides misigri?

Rafals, I think it's both actually.

Firstly I think that many people vastly overestimate the UK's negotiating strength.

Secondly and more importantly I think many people don't understand the way trade negotiations work. This isn't a gentleman's agreement. The EU's negotiating strategy will reflect what the EU believes is in the EU's best interests. Trade negotiations are possible only because sometimes those interests overlap (ie by giving something away, you gain more). In Brexit negotiations, the EU has a great deal to lose if it lets the U.K. get a better deal than it has now. So as the stronger party, it will use its weight to ensure that the U.K. is the net loser.

What's more, the EU will do all this in a very predictable, rules-based way. If the rules say that a member state cannot negotiate trade deals (and the rules do say this), then the EU will strictly enforce that the letter of that rule as long as doing so is in its interests. Hence, the so called "row of the summer" (remember when David Davis was Brexit minister? it all seems so long ago), which was about "sequencing" ie the need for a withdrawal agreement before trade negotiations.

which was about "sequencing" ie the need for a withdrawal agreement before trade negotiations

Article 50 anticipates that withdrawal and the future relationship between the EU and the leaving member would take place in parallel. See below;

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union

EU briefing notes issued in Feb 2016 confirmed that. However, after the referendum changed tack and issued a further briefing note in Jan 2017 that specified that withdrawal and discussion on what happened afterwards were two independent discussions in that order.

"Taking account of the framework" does not mean "negotiate a trade deal."

Indeed, one could very well argue that the EU applied this to the letter. They took account of the framework of the future relationship (ie May's red lines) and negotiated the backstop to protect their interests and those of their member state, Ireland.

(You're really floundering here, btw).

But the wider point is that the EU will do what is in the EU's best interests, and its reading of the rules will be the reading that corresponds best with their interests. The U.K. can take legal action if it thinks the EU's reading of the law is wrong. If it hasn't done this, you have your answer.

Mystery - you are just re running 2016/17 again.

Its over and done.

"Taking account of the framework" does not mean "negotiate a trade deal."

Is that a defined fact or an opinion?

Look on the EU website and it lists trade as one the primary goals of the EU. Likewise the EU was borne when France and Germany decided that trade of goods between the two Countries was preferable to war.

So how can the phrase future relationship exclude trade?

In the strategic nuttery that is Brexit chaos (pretty much what I expected & why I voted Remain): I wonder if BJ has won.

Losing his majority but denied an election: he no longer has to rely on DUP good will. Can shift to a NI only guarantee within customs union as the new WA. Then in the GE campaign BJ can justifiably say he delivered Brexit, and get the majority he hopes for.

Was this Cummings' cunning plan all along?

And NOW this morning we're getting "Oh the public has changed mind on immigration!" and "Tories are now the pro-(skilled)-immigration party!" messages.

Cunning, I tell you, cunning.

"Taking account of the framework" does not mean "negotiate a trade deal."

May’s red lines only leaves an FTA as the future framework.

May’s red lines only leaves an FTA as the future framework

Correct.