Sir,

I believe that it is time to quietly evaluate what is happening and wind the clock back to before March 29th to when Article 50 was negotiated, presented to Parliament and signed into Law.

Article 50 offered two options; the first, a mutually agreed Treaty that the EU and the UK would trade under (I will not go into the contents of such a Treaty), or working under WTO, the default arrangement used by nations with no formal Trade Treaty, allowing the exchange of goods and services in a structured way. To use the vernacular of the day, the terms Treaty and Deal can be interchanged as, in effect, they mean the same, certainly to the man in the street.

This, then, is the true state of play. We either negotiate a mutually agreed Trade Treaty with the EU, or revert to the way most of the world conducts international trade, a Treaty that the majority of the world has signed up to. Note here that WTO is considered a Treaty by signatories. There can be no other alternative, after all, when you buy something from a shop, there is an unspoken agreement that you will select your goods, take them to the check out and pay for the items. Unless you are going to steal them, there is the unspoken assumption that you will pay for them; that quite simply is the ‘deal’ and while unspoken, it is enforceable in law and what is a deal on the High Street, is a Treaty on an International scale!

So what is this ‘No Deal’ so loved by politicians?  It cannot be a bespoke Treaty with the EU, it cannot be WTO, as that is a Treaty in its own right. Quite simply, ‘No Deal’ is a hypothetical situation that does not exist. Whatever the relationship between the EU and UK, our passports will be valid, we will be able to phone France, fly to Germany and undertake the interactions we carry out every day of our lives. So who do we blame for the lazy way our English language is used? Maybe Noel Edmunds is at fault for his ‘Deal or No Deal’ contest, riveting TV it may be, but it in no way represents real life in international trade.

The options under Article 50 remain unchanged.  We Leave, either with a bespoke Treaty or on WTO Treaty terms, that is the truth of the matter, and all the talk of ‘No Deal’ is just smoke and mirrors to scare the electorate.

Maybe BoJo is being clever and come the end of October he will announce that we have left under WTO, with the comment that ‘No Deal’ was never an option under the Article 50 legislation. Would such a move be legal? In my opinion, yes, of course. We see, on a regular basis, cases thrown out of court on a technicality, a word mis-spelt, changing the meaning of a charge or whatever. I have no legal training but I know enough to take great care in what I write or say in these days of litigation at the drop of a hat. Maybe our politicians with all their advisors have simply missed the need to only speak accurately. Maybe in their minds, WTO equals ‘No Deal’, but when push comes to shove, WTO IS a deal (Treaty), and when it comes to court, as it no doubt will, after we Leave on WTO, they will learn the lesson that taking a lazy attitude to what we say often results in failing in the objective!

Respectfully, Jim Stanley

 

~~~   OOO   ~~~

 

Sir,

Remainiac MPs: fighting for democracy or Brexit bashing?

The antics of MPs now calling the shots in Parliament, but refusing to bring a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson, have demonstrated conclusively that they are hell-bent on derailing Brexit. They insist that they are only interested in defending democracy, but are happy to overthrow the 2016 Referendum result without overthrowing the Government. They are drunk with power, but power without responsibility; and they are trashing our democracy, carefully built up over the centuries, in the process. Understandably they are reluctant to face a general election; they will not be easily forgiven by the electorate.

Respectfully, Ann Farmer

 

~~~   OOO   ~~~

 

Sir,

Thomas Paine wrote the following words in relation to the American colonists’ attempts to rid themselves of the tyranny of the British parliament over the free people of the fledgling America.

This was way back in 1774.

The actors are different but the story is the same; the age old story of corrupted governments claiming tyrannical powers to make laws and to tax without any proper regard to the will of the people:

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us,
that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly:
it is dearness only that gives everything its value.
Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods;
and it would be strange indeed
if so celestial an article as FREEDOM
should NOT be highly rated.
Britain, (the EU) with an army to enforce her tyranny,
has declared that she has a right
“to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER”
and if being bound in that manner, is NOT slavery,
then is there not such a thing as slavery….

Respectfully, Brian Cooke

Print Friendly, PDF & Email