A Norway-Plus solution was discussed, and it is technically feasible, although it does require the EFTA members to vote to admit the UK (A taller order now, given the diplomatic fuckery that they’ve been pulling for the last three years).If anything, this would have been the “soft” leave solution that moderate leavers and remainers could have agreed upon, but as it still allows for free movement of labour, the Maybot would never have considered it, choosing instead to pander to the headbangers of the ERG.
This case has gone through the courts already. The Scottish Parliament’s withholding of legislative consent was tested in the courts, and it was found that Westminster can unilaterally overrule the withholding of consent:
This just further illustrates the obscene power imbalance within the UK’s institutions. If the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd can be ignored by Westminster whenever it likes, then devolution is dead, and that furthermore, Carthage the Union must be destroyed.
Norway plus is a non starter as it requires acceptance of freedom of movement, contribution to the EU budget, jurisdiction of the ECJ and compliance with all EUs laws and regulations without a say
Barnier explained it very clearly over 3 years ago, and the situation has not changed
Gotta say that as a non-UK citizen or resident, my amusement over Cameron’s media rehabilitation never ceases. That the mastermind of one of the great political disasters and unforced errors isn’t vilified 24/7/365 amazes me. (Then again, I’m sure our own establishment press will managed to put Baby Donnie on a pedestal when he’s out of office so, sure, my time will come. But for now…)
Like I said, the slide shows that the only thing stopping a Norway style solution is British intransigence. The red lines getting in the way are entirely an invention of the Westminster government, and were never voted on by the public or parliament.
If he simply refuses to follow the law, I believe there is some mechanism whereby the courts can order an official to request an extension on his behalf, which will have the same effect as though he’d done it himself.
In British law, anyway. I don’t know whether the EU would consider it the same.
Sorry, brexit means brexit and all of that. A blue, white and red brexit, where the UK holds all the cards and they can pick and choose what bits of the EU they will like, without the EU having a say…
Parliament has voted dozens of different options and rejected ALL of them, even now, british politicians prefer to engage in party politics and tactics rather than facing the music. Every proposal put forward by the UK has been to gain support within the extremes of each party and deny it to the opposition.
We are past the time for negotiation and compromise, the end game no is who see who takes the blame for one of two outcomes, hard brexit crash or a third extension which could lead to cancellation.
Whatever it happens, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is done for. The country is divided politically, socially, geographically and emotionally and at serious risk of entering in a cycle of degradation that could lead to its desintegration
As I understand it, if he does nothing (i.e. tries to run out the clock to the 31st without a deal) the Benn Act itself forces another extension mid-month, which the EU will probably accept (in anticipation of a resulting no-confidence vote). If he wants his hard Brexit he has to find a way around that.
I don’t think the EU will accept another extension. I think Germany spent a lot of political capital getting France to agree to the last one and I doubt there will be another one unless something clear is going to come out of it. The no-no-deal group can’t form a majority behind any plan: accept deal, revoke 50, have another referendum. I think the EU might accept an extension request from a prime minister who said they were holding another referendum. But if the UK prime minister opposes an extension, the EU would have no reason to think anything will change during the extension period.
Well, if they don’t the UK is well and truly screwed. And the EU won’t escape unscathed. I’m hoping the adults in the room in Brussels will understand that.
I do think this is the last extension the UK will get from them, though. If the British electorate is stupid enough to re-elect de Pfeffel or to vote Leave again in a second referendum I won’t blame the EU for giving up.
Thank you for that clarification. I can’t figure out whether or not the status is that the Scottish Parliament has now assented though. I know that they were refused the right to pass a bill that enshrined EU law into Scottish law as an alternative to the Withdrawal Act but I’m not sure what happened after that…
Oh no, they haven’t given consent now. It’s all politics. they’re sticking to their line of withholding consent, and daring Westminster to go ahead and overrule them . This allows the current Scottish government to play to their position of “Doing everything possible to keep the country in the EU”, and “Making a case for greater powers / independence.”
I know, it’s just that the opposition, collectively, doesn’t seem to really have any clear plan. An extension to have an election so that they can return to a state of not being able to move forward isn’t very appealing.
Well, the Lib Dems have come out in favour of revoking article 50, which I think has been the SNP’s position all along; and Labour now support a second referendum with remain as an option. I don’t think the Lib Dems would oppose such a referendum. So there’s clear blue water between the Johnsonites (who are prepared to risk, or are possibly actively seeking, a no-deal) and everyone else (who want to avoid no-deal, and are prepared to risk, or in some cases are actively seeking, no Brexit).
