| Topic: | Reply | |
| Posted by: | T P Howell | |
| Date/Time: | 24/10/19 23:35:00 |
"She published the withdrawal agreement she negotiated, and the text of the new one is virtually the same, with the exceptions I mentioned above." Thus writes someone who has obviiously not taken the trouble to understand the differences between May's draft Withdrawal Agreement and Johnson's (or, I suspect, understand either of them at all) before opining. They are very different — and to suggest that Parliament should not have the opportunity to consider the legislation is yet another constitutional and anti democratic outrage. There is a good analysis of the differences published today by Anneli Howard, a respect barrister at Monckton Chambers who knows her stuff on EU law (and, exceptionally for an English lawyer, also WTO law). https://twitter.com/thatginamiller/status/1187389161029943303/photo/1 For a ligher read — Jonathan Powell (chief Government negotiator of the Good Friday Agreement) gives a good summary of the fundamental problems with Johnson's expedient approach to the Irish Border issue in today's Evening Standard. Just a few key sentances from his article: "What is new is the removal of the UK from the Customs Union and the provisions on Northern Ireland. As the DUP plaintively points out, these have not been debated and nor is there any economic assessment of their implications for Northern Ireland. Nor has there been any proper consideration of the unintended consequences for the future of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland measures are not what Boris Johnson wanted nor the result of a clever negotiating strategy. He proposed something completely different. He wanted a hard customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland. That was what won him DUP support But at the last minute, in a panic to achieve a deal by the arbitrary date of October 31 he had set himself, he capitulated and accepted the EU proposal of a hard customs and regulatory border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK." Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement is not some hard negotiated triumph. It was a panicked acceptance of what the EU offered two years ago because the "Benn Act" preventing him from crashing out without a deal as he had intended. "The new border Boris Johnson has created is not just wider than he claims — and certainly not a transitional arrangement as suggested — but will grow wider over time as the UK diverges from the EU in terms of regulation and tariffs. More and more goods will be put on the list of those that need to be checked. The problem is not just for business but the very idea of a border separating unionists from the country they want to be united with." The new proposal is not trival. It is also obvious that neither Johnson nor his Brexit minster understand it, or how it will work. That alone is reason why this Bill needs very careful scrutiny in the normal way. The Government's latest stance "we will allow Parliament a few more days to consider the Bill if you agree to a general election" is pathetic.
Foothills of fascim. |