ChatterBank0 min ago
Brexit
DOMINIC RAAB , GOES!.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the point I'm making is that "fulfilling our obligations" means a great deal more than you seem to be allowing for. It includes, among other things, obligations to EU citizens in the EU, and to UK citizens in the EU. It includes obligations to Northern Ireland, in terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It includes financial obligations, both to the current EU budget cycle as well as to future payments with respect to pensions. It includes obligations to respecting existing trade arrangements. And on, and on.
Further, there are moral obligations, as the UK having taken this decision is obligated to ensure that the transition happens with the minimum of disruption, both to our citizens and to the EU.
I'd encourage you to read the agreement and see how it tries to address some of these. The compromises that have been made in order to try essentially amount to ceding all influence we had over EU regulations while still paying towards the EU, and still accepting those regulations as they are passed elsewhere. It's a disastrous deal -- but my point is that its nature is such because of the effort to "fulfill our obligations".
If, after all, something better was possible, can you explain where the deal should change to still meet that test, while not being such a mess?
Further, there are moral obligations, as the UK having taken this decision is obligated to ensure that the transition happens with the minimum of disruption, both to our citizens and to the EU.
I'd encourage you to read the agreement and see how it tries to address some of these. The compromises that have been made in order to try essentially amount to ceding all influence we had over EU regulations while still paying towards the EU, and still accepting those regulations as they are passed elsewhere. It's a disastrous deal -- but my point is that its nature is such because of the effort to "fulfill our obligations".
If, after all, something better was possible, can you explain where the deal should change to still meet that test, while not being such a mess?
It was linked to earlier, but in case you missed it, here's the draft text in full again:
https:/
https:/
It was a referendum that created this almighty mess in the first place. If there were another and the vote was to remain then Europe would be able to dictate for the forseeable future. I would hope that if this debacle has taught us anything it's that some things are too important to be put to a single issue referendum.
I appreciate that the public may not be shown everything but so far I've not been made aware of any documented obligations; merely claimed ones from folk who don't admit one doesn't retain obligations one had as a member of something after one leaves the group. No deal is therefore fine. Nothing else comes close to being valid.
