But why? From my very limited knowledge on this, it seems everyone is saying that a no-deal crash out will be bad economically. So is it just ideology (dare I say dogmatism) from the Johnson government at this point?
The main reason is because some rich donors (to the governing Conservative party) have hedge positions that will make them a lot of money in the event of a hard brexit.
More or less. I don't think they even argue about the economics of it any more.
As long as they can blame somebody else (the EU, remainers, the global situation) they will be happy. They want to mould the UK into their own vision and don't care how many people are disadvantaged in the process.
As for "court jurisdiction and supremacy of parliament", given the way the government has abused its powers at times, I'd like a higher court than the UK one.
BTW I did raise a question illegality by the UK government with the EU. Stuff started to get done. The UK government's standard brush-off to being challenged on something they don't want to answer to, is "it's not in the public interest". Which is bullshit.
If the UK government wasn't so tossy and incompetent, I might be a lot more sympathetic to "court jurisdiction and supremacy of parliament"
The UK has submitted a lot of ideas for various compromise positions, some of them incredible compromises that nearly amount to not leaving at all.
The EU has rejected all of them completely. It's even rejected proposals from the UK that were the EU's own suggestions.
It's just bad faith at this point. The EU itself is an ideology, an overwhelmingly cult-like one. They bend over backwards to make it hard to leave. The president of France has literally said that "there must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price" with leaving it. That's not how cooperative groups of allies are usually described, is it?
Like with all such organisations they can't stand the idea of compromise because they know that many countries have large populations that don't like the EU. From their perspective if they bend here, if show flexibility and have friendly post-Brexit UK relations, then a whole lot of other countries will start to want out. Ultimately the EU is a bad deal: an all or nothing "with us or against us" proposition. If they cut a deal with the UK that allows local concerns of local voters to start mattering, the EU as a project of ideological unification will be over within a few years.
- May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6)
- The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement
- The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law.
- Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only
- The definition of UK citizen becomes controlled by the EU i.e. the EU would effectively control British elections by deciding who can vote in them.
- The EU and its employees are to be immune to UK tax law (even if they live in the UK)
- The UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals
Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally
- The General Data Protection Regulation is to be bound into UK law
- The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives
- The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions
- All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules
- The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is
- The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for
- The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid
- The UK will be liable for future EU lending
etc etc. It goes on like this.
This so-called "deal" was actually written in Brussels, by the EU, and Theresa May agreed to it! The only reason the UK/EU are still negotiating is that this attempted deal was so terrible even a Remain-dominated Parliament couldn't agree to it.
Of course May resigned eventually after trying three times to get this agreement through Parliament, and there was a leadership change.
The EU had originally insisted that given the original goals of Brexit, the only possible outcome sans compromise was a Canada-style deal. They even made a helpful slide that showed this:
At the time Theresa May felt that was unacceptable, hence the use as a pressure tactic. Johnson felt differently, and the EU wasn't willing to negotiate in good faith anyway, so went back and said "fine, we'll take the Canada deal". So Barnier changed his mind and decided actually a Canada-style deal wasn't an option anymore.
It's just time wasting nonsense at this point. The EU is rejecting options it has itself proposed. It's bad faith and the UK should walk away.