If the two sides walk away then we dont need to see the govt recalling UK parliament & the european parliament also doesn't need to vote
With 10 days to go, there are three main outcomes of the #Brexit talks:
1) no deal
2) the two sides are still talking but run out of time - qu if can find other ways to buy more time
3) a deal is reached which the UK ratifies & EU provisionally applies
If the two sides walk away then we dont need to see the govt recalling UK parliament & the european parliament also doesn't need to vote
While I dont think UK will be straight back to the negotiating table - esp if PM unwilling to compromise in current circumstances - there will still be unresolved issues
They may want to buy more time for talks but as @GeorginaEWright has pointed out, it is really much more complicated than that: https://t.co/a9r2vzVjQ6
Extending the transition period is a lovely idea - in theory. But in practice, it's a total minefield and not clear it can be done in time. Why? Thread.
— Georgina Wright (@GeorginaEWright) December 21, 2020
Although @aliceolilly has pointed out recall has been complicated by covid rules: https://t.co/kPaA7vXT32
There is still - just about - enough time for the UK parliament to pass implementing legislation
Quick thread on recall, coronavirus, Brexit, and why it\u2019s all a bit more complicated than usual.
— Dr Alice Lilly (@aliceolilly) December 20, 2020
So: recall happens at the request of the government. Parliament cannot recall itself. Explainer here: https://t.co/4myCgbpUqM
More on UK process here: https://t.co/bHExrSh8xb
But, although politically difficult, the Council can still chose to provisionally apply the treaty: https://t.co/MNnTkxnry4
As we discussed two weeks ago: https://t.co/COcWhsEA7E
Brexit talks are in the 'tunnel' or final stretch, with rumours of a deal as soon as next week.
— Joe Marshall (@Joe_Marshall0) November 17, 2020
But what difference would a deal make?
\U0001f9f5
Tl,dr: Not much in terms of what needs to be done to prepare, but a big difference for business and future UK-EU relations
1/
More from Brexit
London intends to make use of its costly SPS regulatory autonomy. As widely anticipated, first area of divergence expected to take place in the field of Crispr technology for genome editing, area where the UK has long argued for a more liberal stance.https://t.co/btRoxU3saZ
— Emily Rees (@emilyrees_eu) January 7, 2021
Let's start off with: I don't think any trade experts are surprised by this. It is why the TCA did not do much on SPS. It is why the EU did not offer much on SPS. It is why the UK did not ask much on SPS.
But it also shows that the popular slogan "after Brexit we'll have the same standards as before, so why would anything change in trade" was wrong - and worse, it was purposefully trying to stifle a necessary debate.
And this leads me to the next point: I have no issue with changing the rules, I have a massive issue with how it is done. Here's what we should discuss:
The decisive question: What are the standards the UK as a country wants. To inform this debate, we need the following information:
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?