Examining the role of the “Surrender Act” in Brexitist thinking - and how to debunk the myth surrounding it Most of you reading this will be pro-European, so you probably constantly wonder how “We hold all the cards” and “Easiest deal in human history” squares with the way Brexit has turned out, at least in the mind of the Brexiter. Particularly as one reason given by Brexiters for the poor quality of Brexit thus far, when they aren’t trying to pin it all on Covid or poor Ukraine, is that the EU are ‘punishing’ the UK for wanting to leave the bloc. How would they have had the power to do this in the first place if we held all the cards?
Just to clarify: when you say the Benn Act was null and void, despite being repealed after the trade agreement was reached - that's not because it was repealed but because it had already done what it was supposed to do and secured an extension for negotiations to take place? And because Johnson could, if he'd wished, have extended those negotiations - or ended them - thanks to his majority and regardless of the existence of the Benn Act. Have I understood that correctly?
Hi Jonathan - The Benn Act was made redundant by leaving the EU, yes. Nothing in it applied any longer once we had left. However, it was in fact formally repealed as well. As in, as part of the series voted required to put the Withdrawal Agreement in law, the Benn Act was repealed by the government formally, despite the fact that it no longer had any use in future. Whatever the motivations for that, I will leave you to hypothesise.
Thanks - thought so, but also thought it might not be clear.
I suppose whether the Benn Act was a mistake is one of those 'what ifs', like whether it might have been beneficial to have kept stringing out Parliament rather than forcing an election in 2019. Easy to see why those in the thick of it felt like they had to do it.
Thanks for the interesting read Nick.
Just to clarify: when you say the Benn Act was null and void, despite being repealed after the trade agreement was reached - that's not because it was repealed but because it had already done what it was supposed to do and secured an extension for negotiations to take place? And because Johnson could, if he'd wished, have extended those negotiations - or ended them - thanks to his majority and regardless of the existence of the Benn Act. Have I understood that correctly?
Hi Jonathan - The Benn Act was made redundant by leaving the EU, yes. Nothing in it applied any longer once we had left. However, it was in fact formally repealed as well. As in, as part of the series voted required to put the Withdrawal Agreement in law, the Benn Act was repealed by the government formally, despite the fact that it no longer had any use in future. Whatever the motivations for that, I will leave you to hypothesise.
Thanks - thought so, but also thought it might not be clear.
I suppose whether the Benn Act was a mistake is one of those 'what ifs', like whether it might have been beneficial to have kept stringing out Parliament rather than forcing an election in 2019. Easy to see why those in the thick of it felt like they had to do it.
That is also my understanding.
The act required certain levels of parliamentary control over the withdrawal agreement process.
With that having been completed it had no longer any impact or purpose.
Repealing it didn't change anything legally.
It was just for show
Thanks for putting the “Ireland problem” in quotes. As we all know, it's a British or more accurately an English problem.
Likewise, the "Irish border" should also be in quotes. That is really the British border in Ireland.
Well, I guess all borders have two side. For someone living in Ireland that is the "UK Border"