1/ The Chequers Accord was dead before it was written. There are important factors that verify that statement and it is important for both Remainers and Leavers to come to terms with that reality. This thread explains what I mean.

#FBPE #WATON @theresa_may @jeremycorbyn
2/ The 4 pillars of the EU are indivisible. The EU and other States can't cherry pick those pillars (people, goods, services and capital). IF the EU decided to allow the UK to split the freedoms it would also have to make the same allowances for 50 plus other countries.
3/ In order for the EU to accept the Chequers Accord they'd be in breach of their own international Treaties. This is extremly impropable. Not just that, WTO RULES state that you cannot provide a better deal for one nation over others.
4/ Another key WTO rule: if you want to trade favourably then a country must control goods coming in and going out of the country. This has been ratified by all 164 members of the WTO. Section 10 (EUW Act) states the govt can't create a hard border in Ireland or damage the GFA.
5/ This means if the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we would be subject to the highest possible external tariff regime for every country in the WTO & it would also be impossible for the UK to negotiate FTAs to mitigate these extortionate tariffs, devastating UK exporters.
6/ With 5 weeks of negotiations remaining before concluding A50 talks, the only proposal from the UK Govt is to ask the EU to break it's own international Treaties and Agreements, that or we leave on the worst possible terms for the UK (and EU).
Our alternative is to remain in the EU where we currently trade all around the world, make our own laws (in Westminster) and influencing the laws of the world's largest trade bloc while controlling our standards and quality (stopping the UK from coming to an economic standstill).
It is important to know a little factoid (well massive fact really): from 1990 to 2016 the UK economy grew by 68% - that's faster than the G7!!

Our economy has taken a massive hit since the 2016 ref and growth is now the worst in the EU and one of the worst on our continent.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Rob Palmer

Dr Rob Palmer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RobertCPalmer13

Sep 10, 2018
[Thread Pt2]

Official summary of Govt's response to Wilson v PM JR claim (@UKEUchallenge) 👇👇

This thread continues with counsel’s response to the govt's Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) and picks up with why the @UKEUchallenge is both arguable and justiciable. /25
The findings of the EC Reports comprised findings of misconduct by Vote Leave & Leave.EU serious enough to amount to ‘illegal or corrupt practices and/or fraud’. This conduct is covered by the RPA as a species of conduct rendering the result of an election void./26
In this species, the one the Claimant relies upon, illegal practice is defined as when a candidate is guilty, or guilty by his agents, of any corrupt or illegal practice. Erlam v Rahman [2015] EWHC 1215 held that proof of its effect is irrelevant and not required. /27
Read 13 tweets
Sep 10, 2018
[Thread Pt1] Official summary of Govt's response to Wilson v PM JR claim (@UKEUchallenge) 👇👇

The govt response is preposterous. It misinterprets & distorts the grounds in what can only be described as an attempt to pervert the facts & side step the essence of the claim. /1
The Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) tries usual tricks to prevent a claim from getting permission.
1. Time
2. Unarguable
3. Non-justiciable
Each resistance can be strongly refuted by the Claimant; I'll deal with them briefly... /2
Time: @theresa_may first asserts the claim is out of time because it needed to be brought within times ranging from 21 days to 6 weeks. These timing claims originate from Sch 3 of EURA 2015 & the Representation of the People Act 1983. Both can be heavily contested. /3
Read 25 tweets
Sep 2, 2018
This thread is to arm fellow European British with essential info about our POSSIBLE future relationship with the WTO and what it would mean for the UK in a no deal situation. Use it to rebut Brexiteer disengenuity and nonsense on the matter - facts matter. /1
#FBPE #WATON #FBR
WTO RULES state that you can’t treat other nations more favourably in trade deals. So, the EU be in breach of their own international Treaties to accept the Chequers Accord. This is highly unlikely; they’d have to make these same allowances for more than 50 other countries. /2
Central to WTO rules is, to trade favourably, then a country must have a hard border to control good entering & leaving the country (as ratified by all 164 WTO members). S.10 of the EUWA18 makes this impossible: the UK can’t create a hard border in Ireland (protecting the GFA)./3
Read 6 tweets
Aug 29, 2018
[Ref illegality & corruption THREAD 👇👇]

Been asked to summarise the Susan Wilson (@Suewilson91) v Prime Minister case. This thread gives the basics of the pleadings and relief sought. /1

#UKEUChallenge

#VoteLeaveBrokeTheLaw #FBPE #WATON #FBR @abcpoppins #StopBrexit
There is a principal issue underlying the case that poses a simple question: is a lawful, free and fair vote one of the constitutional requirements of the UK? It's asked after 2 Electoral Commission (EC) Reports found that illegality & corruption dogged the ref campaign. /2
Let me make this clear. The EC findings were to the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) & serious offences were committed by the designated campaign for leaving the EU (& others), in breach of the statutory framework established by Parliament for the ref. /3
Read 14 tweets
Aug 7, 2018
2. A fundamental principle of the common law is that votes can be declared void for substantial irregularity. If irregularity affects the result of an election it is by itself enough to compel the tribunal to declare the election void.
3. The result doesn't need to be affected. Only a ‘substantial departure’ from the rules, or the election being ‘conducted so badly that it was not substantially in accordance with the law’ is needed to void the ballot.
Read 9 tweets
Apr 26, 2018
1.#A50Challenge disputes the govt's claims that a 'decision' to leave the EU has been made 'in accordance with [our] constitutional requirements'. The underlying assumptions of that decision haven't been tested in court. THREAD explaining why the ref result isn't a decision #FBPE
2. In 2011 the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act was legislated during the 1st Cameroon govt. It was unique as it was a 'madatory' referendum. The same administration legislated for the Referendum Act 2015 as an 'advisory' ref; 2011 bound parliament 2015 didn't.
3. The 1975 ref process was different. It was, what's termed as, a post-legislative ref. In other words, Parliament voted for EC membership, then legislated for the Referendum Act 1975. The assent of the people (67% to 33%) then made that result binding; theoretically.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(