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
Yes, nice one Mr Stanley and as MWT says, Boris may well be using that argument. I’m sure there are many better examples than America’s War of Independence, where our unwritten constitution defends our freedoms and is incompatible with the declared intentions of the EU. Even Magna Carta defends freedoms the EU are infringing.
Mr Stanley is quite right – talking of no deal is smoke and mirrors. Hardly suitable language for a so called Act of Parliament.
Jim Stanley appears to be conflating the “Withdrawal Agreement” with a Trade Treaty, which it isn’t.
We haven’t even STARTED on negotiating anything to do with trade, as the EU has refused to do so until the terms of our leaving are settled (the WA or “deal”).
This “deal” is intended to do nothing more than ensure the UK is hamstrung in its trading with not only the EU but the rest of the world, continue allowing EU boats to destroy UK fish stocks, make the European Court (an EU body…) the sole arbiter of disputes, & continue to set standards (often at a lower level than the UK desires, thus allowing less safe food & goods from the EU into the UK).
Oh & also to ensure the UK pays the EU £39bn for the “privilege” of following all of the above (& more).
This is one of the real issues I have with those on the Leave side: We’re NOT ensuring the voting public is aware the WA has nothing to do with trade & this omission meeds to be addressed.
I think it’s safe to say any Trade Treaty “negotiated after signing the WA (minus “backstop”) would inevitably be under unfavourable terms for the UK.
Thus the only sane option is to leave without a WA, not pay the EU a penny more than the UK deems our real responsibility (£9-11bn is I believe the true amount), not fall under the EU Court, stop foreign vessels fishing UK waters (cf Iceland…) & set our own, high standards for goods & food.
That’s right Mike. The WA was only put in place to keep us tied into the EU before we even started talking about a Trade Deal. We should not have to forfeit sovereignty and independence to get a Trade Deal. No other country outside the EU has had to do that, nor would they.
Could the Government overwhelm its opponents with a blizzard of court cases – on the 18th Oct.
Against the Supreme Court decision as unlawful/lawless or whatever.
Against the speaker as acting beyond his remit or whatever.
Against every remainer and party that has spoken to the EU to get them to stop Brexit – use the ‘t-t-r’ word!
there must be loads
– get them so busy with fear and defending themselves that they cannot get their abysmal act together.
Mike, I was careful not to mention the Withdrawal Agreement, as it is not on the table, it is not included in Article 50, and until such time as it is, it can, like “No Deal”, be set to one side. When I penned my offering, I wished to make the main point that we must be accurate in what we actually say, maybe WTO is not a “Treaty”, but, without access to our overseas trade contacts, I simply asked a number of people how they consider WTO. Is it a Deal, or a Treaty, maybe an Agreement would be a more accurate way to describe it? Whatever the legal definition it is a formal agreed way to Trade, and presumably there is some paperwork that has to be signed..
As I stated, I have no legal training, and refer to “The Man in the Street”, and, in my humble opinion, the public view WTO as a formal way to trade, and refer to WTO as a Treaty or a Deal or whatever, the legal nuances lost to the untrained mind. The point is that the alternatives under Article 50 remain, with the WA and No Deal not in the picture. I will point out, however, that I have not read the latest debate barring of Leaving with No Deal, it may well be that the record will show that it is Leaving under WTO that is off the table, and our wonderfully accurate Media, have in their usual lazy way, turned WTO into no Deal, which it patently is not
The fact that we have not started to negotiate trade when we Leave the EU is not an issue, we already trade outside the EU on WTO, and I assume that, as WTO is well established, we would automatically go to WTO at the end of October, when we formally Leave. Also a presumption, as formal agreements are made, any tariffs etc would be refunded (either way) on the signing of a formal treaty, which would be quick if reports are to be believed. The important thing is to look to the future with optimism, plan now for a bright future, failure to plan such a future, will, without doubt, result in a very bleak dawn!
Nice one Mr Stanley – that’s what I am hoping Boris means when he talks about a million to one chance of no deal. He’d better be meaning that anyway.
Re the Paine speech yes we have become complacent and not valued our freedoms enough. We thus find ourselves where we are…
I am one of the 17.4 million who voted leave and the opposition parties need someone to change their nappies especially the lib dem leader.