Home » UK
Category Archives: UK
In an historic referendum on June 23, 2016 a majority of British citizens voted to Leave the European Union, and the ruling Conservative Party of the United Kingdom agreed to carry out the will of The People. So far, so good.
Theresa May was then appointed by the Conservative Party to be “The Brexit Prime Minister” and both the Conservative Party and the new Prime Minister promised that they would carry out the will of The People.
But then, they didn’t.
8-Days to go Until the Official Brexit Date of March 29, 2019
To be fair, there are still 8-days to go until the official Brexit date of March 29, 2019 and the UK could still conceivably Leave the EU on time — thereby allowing Theresa May and her Conservative Party to keep their promise to The People. At least, that’s the theory.
So, it’s important to note here that The People didn’t vote for a Withdrawal Agreement, nor did they vote for a Political Declaration, nor did they vote for a Joint Instrument. The People voted to Brexit, they didn’t vote for fancy-schmantzy political documents that seem unbelievably important to bureaucrats and politicians, but which appear to be meaningless drivel to the severely normal citizens of the UK and the EU.
Therefore, the onus is on UK and EU politicians to get the job done that they were hired to do, and to not allow their political games (or their trouble-causing political documents) to prevent the will of The People from being carried out as directed in the easy to understand 2016 referendum ballot question and subsequent vote result.
To put it simply; The will of The People trumps the bureaucratic and political machinations of UK and EU politicians, 100% of the time.
Why Do We Need a Brexit Extension Anyway?
Because. The. Politicians. Just. Couldn’t. Get. The. Job. Done.
Is anyone really surprised about this? I doubt it.
Today, with 8-days to go until the official Brexit date of March 29, 2019, the EU appears to have granted Theresa May’s request to extend the official Brexit date to May 22, 2019 (not to the June 30, 2019 that she was asking for) subsequent to the UK House of Commons passing the draft Withdrawal Agreement, and the non legally binding Political Declaration, and the (helpful in a minor way) Joint Instrument.
So, what have they been doing over the past 1001-days?
As of today’s date (March 21, 2019) it’s been 1001-days since Britons voted to Leave the European Union — and in all that time the politicians couldn’t come up with a way for the UK to Leave the EU and not have it break their own-chosen date of March 29, 2019.
It’s a damning indictment of politics in the 21st-century. There’s no other way to say it!
Let’s Compare Cultures, Shall We?
In any military culture, a failure to deliver on such a massive scale would result in the court-martial of everyone involved in this duster-cluck; And in any corporate culture, every CEO involved would’ve been fired at the 6th-month for non-performance, and likewise their replacements fired at each subsequent 6th-month interval for the same reason.
In any royal culture; Such Kings, Queens, Princes, etc., who would fail on such a massive scale would have their status severely downgraded among their peers within days or weeks.
In the entertainment industry; And even in Hollywood, the land of milk and honey, punishment exists for massive failure:
- Let’s imagine for a moment that Theresa May, Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk were hired on June 23, 2016 by the Academy Awards talent committee to host the Academy Awards on March 29, 2019.
- And then, let’s imagine that they were still negotiating (with each other) the lines that they would read while on stage, right up to mere hours ahead of the Academy Awards event.
- And then let’s imagine that all three of them emailed the Academy Awards talent committee mere hours before the event to inform them that they wouldn’t be ready to read their lines on March 29, 2019 — until May 22, 2019, or maybe later than that.
- Consequently, the Academy Awards would need to be suddenly cancelled and rescheduled to May 22, 2019, or maybe later than that.
- Or, suitable replacements to host the Academy Awards would need to be found, to allow the show to go on as originally scheduled.
- What do you think would be the response from the Academy Awards committee?
- What do you think would be the response of the television viewing public?
- Even in Hollywood, the land of good and bad actors, the land of debauchery (sometimes) and excess (always), the land of drama and the land of special effects — these people would be fired forever. (You’ll never work in this town again!)
Only in political systems could humans exhibiting failure on such a massive scale survive and thrive. It is to weep.
Having Painted Themselves Into a Corner; The Only Face-Saving Way Out of This Disaster is a WTO Brexit!
Maybe that’s what these politicians wanted all along, as the end result!
In that way (they hope) citizens on both sides would recoil in horror from the dreaded WTO-style Brexit.
No wonder these politicians and their enablers have been doing everything they can to amp-up fears about a so-called ‘No Deal’ Brexit which would allow these bad actors the political cover they need to cancel Brexit altogether, which is, I suspect, what they wanted all along.
“The will of The People be damned! We won’t be told (by voters) how to run OUR countries!”
March 20, 2019: UK Prime Minister Theresa May writes to EC President Donald Tusk to request an audience with EC and EU leaders to discuss her application for an Article 50 extension, as the UK is unable to gather enough votes to pass the Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration in the UK House of Commons prior to the official Brexit date of March 29, 2019.
Transcript provided by the BBC
The UK Government’s policy remains to leave the European Union in an orderly manner on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed in November, complemented by the Joint Instrument and supplement to the Political Declaration President Juncker and I agreed on 11 March.
You will be aware that before the House of Commons rejected the deal for a second time on 12 March, I warned in a speech in Grimsby that the consequences of failing to endorse the deal were unpredictable and potentially deeply unpalatable. The House of Commons did not vote in favour of the deal. The following day it voted against leaving the EU without a negotiated deal. The day after that it supported a Government motion that proposed a short extension to the Article 50 period if the House supported a meaningful vote before this week’s European Council. The motion also made clear that if this had not happened, a longer extension would oblige the UK to call elections to the European Parliament. I do not believe that it would be in either of our interests for the UK to hold European Parliament elections.
I had intended to bring the vote back to the House of Commons this week. The Speaker of the House of Commons said on Monday that in order for a further meaningful vote to be brought back to the House of Commons, the agreement would have to be “fundamentally different-not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance”. Some Members of Parliament have interpreted that this means a further change to the deal. This position has made it impossible in practice to call a further vote in advance of the European Council. However, it remains my intention to bring the deal back to the House.
In advance of that vote, I would be grateful if the European Council could therefore approve the supplementary documents that President Juncker and I agreed in Strasbourg, putting the Government in a position to bring these agreements to the House and confirming the changes to the Government’s proposition to Parliament. I also intend to bring forward further domestic proposals that confirm my previous commitments to protect our internal market, given the concerns expressed about the backstop. On this basis, and in the light of the outcome of the European Council, I intend to put forward a motion as soon as possible under section 13 of the Withdrawal Act 2018 and make the argument for the orderly withdrawal and strong future partnership the UK economy, its citizens’ security and the continent’s future, demands.
If the motion is passed, I am confident that Parliament will proceed to ratify the deal constructively. But this will clearly not be completed before 29 March 2019. In our legal system, the Government will need to take a Bill through both Houses of Parliament to enact our commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement into domestic law. While we will consult with the Opposition in the usual way to plan the passage of the Bill as quickly and smoothly as possible, the timetable for this is inevitably uncertain at this stage. I am therefore writing to inform the European Council that the UK is seeking an extension to the Article 50 period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, until 30 June 2019.
I would be grateful for the opportunity to set out this position to our colleagues on Thursday.
Transcript courtesy of BBC.com
Thumbnail image courtesy of iNews
March 19, 2019: It’s been 999-days since the June 23, 2016 referendum to leave the European Union and the UK government has failed in all that time to agree a deal with the EU — yet UK Prime Minister Theresa May has steadfastly maintained that Brexit will happen on the promised Brexit date of March 29, 2019 — “Deal or No Deal” — according to the Prime Minister.
And, there is still a 50/50 chance the UK might actually leave the EU on that date.
However, the odds of not leaving on that date were increased due to a series of votes in the UK House of Commons in recent days, and subsequent to those events, Theresa May seems to be backing-off from her usual assertions that “the UK will indeed Leave the European Union on March 29, 2019,” which is having the effect of causing even more uncertainty in the UK economy than had been the case over the previous 999-days.
Whereas the Theresa May government has promised Britons and British industry (hundreds of times over the past 999-days) that “the UK will indeed Leave the EU on March 29, 2019,” and whereas thousands of UK businesses have been incurring extra costs in their preparations over the past 999-days to meet the guesstimated requirements of Brexit, and whereas unconventional costs are likely to be incurred by UK businesses (through no fault of their own) if the UK government misses the official Brexit deadline which has been promised over the past 999-days by the Prime Minister and by other members of her government;
A case may be made that UK businesses can sue the government for the false and ongoing advertising (of the officially presented Brexit date) and for non-performance of its duties (failure to deliver Brexit as promised) and for not warning UK businesses in advance that Brexit may not occur on March 29, 2019 as promised hundreds of times over the past 999-days.
As a majority of Britons voted for Brexit and as UK businesses are subject to democracy just like everyone else, they wouldn’t be entitled to sue the government for acting on the results of the June 2016 referendum.
But what they can sue the government for is promising hundreds of times over the past 999-days to deliver Brexit right up until the official Brexit date — and then not delivering it — with the UK government knowing full well they weren’t able to deliver Brexit, or had changed their minds in recent days or weeks about their ability to deliver Brexit.
Without taking anything away from the previous paragraphs, it could also be argued that UK businesses could sue the UK government for failing to inform them in advance that the official Brexit date (might be) or (will be) missed.
As most businesses in the UK operate on a quarterly schedule, that would mean the UK government should’ve officially informed UK businesses about the possibility of a missed Brexit at any time prior to January 31, 2019 — which is when the October 1 through December 31 quarterly reports are typically due.
If Theresa May and Co. think that they can ‘suspend’ Brexit indefinitely in order to solve the above-described problem, they couldn’t be more wrong.
UK businesses cannot sue the government for the present period of uncertainty.
BUT IF THE OFFICIAL BREXIT DATE IS MISSED DUE TO A FAULT OF THE UK GOVERNMENT, THEREBY RESULTING IN A FAILURE TO DELIVER BREXIT ON TIME AND AS PROMISED; Beginning March 29, 2019 the UK government could be sued by UK businesses for losses resulting from an oft-promised and subsequently missed official Brexit date — especially when no advance warning was given to UK businesses about a potential missed Brexit prior to the end of the 4th-quarter reporting period.
Therefore; For the Theresa May government to avoid having to pay £1 billion per week (or more) in court ordered penalties to UK businesses should the government fail to deliver Brexit by March 29, 2019;
I strongly advise the Prime Minister to keep her promise to Britons and to British industry that the UK will exit the European Union on March 29, 2019.
There’s no way out of the looming catastrophe of the UK government being sued by British industry on account of a Brexit ‘own goal’ unless you actually keep your promise that, “the UK will indeed Leave the EU on March 29, 2019.”
And if you don’t keep that promise I hope it costs the UK government billions. Because going forward, that’s how much all the additional uncertainty (from March 30th onward) will amount to and all of it caused by a suddenly missed and no advance notice Brexit.
You were saying to your MP’s recently, “Don’t lose your [Brexit] nerve.”
Well, maybe this blog post/circular will help MP’s to keep their nerve and to deliver Brexit as has been promised by the UK government almost every day for the past 999-days.
Image courtesy of PoliticsHome.com