,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
An example of why “no deal” leads to legal chaos, which no responsible MP could contemplate.
On a “no deal” Brexit, all the trade remedies imposed by the EU on dumped or subsidised exports from eg China fall away. Covering a large range of products from solar panels to electric bicycles.
To prevent such imports flooding in after a no deal Brexit on 29/3/19 the U.K. would need to impose its own remedies.
The mechanism - now in law (the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Act 2018) - gives the main decision-making power to the Trade Remedies Authority.
But the TRA does not yet exist, in law. It was to be set up by the Trade Bill - which the Government has parked in the House of Lords.
To have a coherent regime in place on 30 March Parliament would have to agree to pass the Trade Bill (or, possibly, let through an SI letting the Secretary of State exercise its powers).
A brief look at the HoC shows that neither will happen.
One can broaden the point out to tariffs generally. Any tariff schedule in place on 30/3/19 would need to be approved, under the 2018 Act, by the HoC.
Again, no dealers simply don’t have the votes to get that done.
Any MP supporting no deal is therefore suggesting that the U.K. will, on 30/3/19, not only have no trade remedies in place, but no tariffs on anything at all.
This sort of example can be found all over our law.
It is why any MP suggesting no deal is the right way forward should be asked how, without the votes to get the necessary legislation in place, it could, remotely, be a responsible act of any government to permit “no deal”.
