If Brexit needs house of commons and Lords backing ...

movilogo

It would be interesting to see how long a Remain MP can remain an MP after s/he decides to block Brexit in parliament - especially when his/her constituency favoured Brexit.

Referendum result was 52:48. The MPs themselsves voted for 25:75.

(source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946)

This proves how detached MPs are from common public. Rather than serving public they serve their own interests, big business and Eurocrats. If they block Brexit, it will be proven MPs don't represent interest of their constituencies at all.

Conrad

Lisa Nandy on QT kept saying 'MP's must have a say on the shape of Brexit'.


So lets imagine how the question of the SM would be debated and surely indefinitely stalled;


1) Access to the Single Market - THE GOVT > 'The Govt believes we can obtain tariff and barrier free trade, given the fact French and German workers will not tolerate having their jobs put at risk by trade being hampered, let alone all the economic uncertainty a trade war would introduce' 'Article 8 more or less requires an amicable practical settlement that works in the interests of trade'


REMAINERS > 'we believe this to be a fantasy, we will be punished hard by Brussels, and German and French workers will pay the price, as will we, therefore we must accede sovereignty or lose trade'


How on earth would this ever be resolved?

steampowered

Conrad wrote: »

How on earth would this ever be resolved?

The UK could remain in the single market by accepting membership of the single market while being outside the EU, as Switzerland and Norway have done.

This would mean accepting free movement of persons (as that is part of the single market) and contributing financially to the costs of the single market, as has been made very clear by several EU states from the outset.

I think it is a bit of a fantasy to believe that the other EU states will accept "single market a la carte" to be honest.

There is a middle ground between membership of the single market and an all-out trade war by the way. The single market is a lot more than tariff barriers.

steampowered

Masomnia wrote: »

See points 5 and especially 6 in the 2 page summary: 'The government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given'

ie. the decision is based on the idea that Article 50 is not reversible. Hence point 6

'Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law... would inevitably be lost'.

Whether rights would 'inevitably' be lost once Article 50 is served is central to this case.

That was not the matter in dispute. The court was not deciding whether issue of the notice was reversible or not. The government and the claimant had both acknowledged that triggering Article 50 would result in the loss of rights under EU law.

The issue in dispute was solely about whether the government is entitled to trigger an Article 50 notice under the crown's prerogative, or whether parliament's consent is required.

The court could not have been clearer about this. The court set out the issue it was deciding right at the start of the summary.

Conrad

steampowered wrote: »

The UK could remain in the single market by accepting membership of the single market while being outside the EU, as Switzerland and Norway have done.

This would mean accepting free movement of persons (as that is part of the single market) and contributing financially to the costs of the single market, as has been made very clear by several EU states from the outset.

I think it is a bit of a fantasy to believe that the other EU states will accept "single market a la carte" to be honest.

There is a middle ground between membership of the single market and an all-out trade war by the way. The single market is a lot more than tariff barriers.

So both sides will disagree on the shape of Brexit, and so endless debate ensues, this will mean Brexit cannot proceed.


Given 68.8% of the counting areas voted leave, but only 25% of parliamentarians so did, I would imagine the people would look very dimly on Parliament for denying the will of the people and something truly fundamental would come to pass.

mrginge

steampowered wrote: »

The UK could remain in the single market by accepting membership of the single market while being outside the EU, as Switzerland and Norway have done.

This would mean accepting free movement of persons (as that is part of the single market) and contributing financially to the costs of the single market, as has been made very clear by several EU states from the outset.

I think it is a bit of a fantasy to believe that the other EU states will accept "single market a la carte" to be honest.

There is a middle ground between membership of the single market and an all-out trade war by the way. The single market is a lot more than tariff barriers.

You are missing the very important point that the govt have already stated that they will no longer accept free movement of people.

beecher2

mrginge wrote: »

You are missing the very important point that the govt have already stated that they will no longer accept free movement of people.

So they need to be honest about the fact that the UK won't be part of the single market.

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

So they need to be honest about the fact that the UK won't be part of the single market.

If the Swiss are able to get a deal on limiting free movement I don't see why the UK couldn't adopt a similar position as the Swiss, inside the single market, able to make you're own trade deals. Free movement of people with a caveat of domestic jobs should go primarily to domestic citizens. Would appear to me to be a happy middle ground for all. I'd prefer an EEA/EFTA style agreement anyway.

mrginge

beecher2 wrote: »

So they need to be honest about the fact that the UK won't be part of the single market.

As has been repeated many many times, having access to the single market does not require you to be a member.

The govt have been perfectly clear.
They want to restrict free movement of people.
They want to negotiate access to the single market.

Sounds like a plan to me.

jimjames

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If the Swiss are able to get a deal on limiting free movement

They haven't as far as I'm aware