Brexit

[William Clough]

We are being led by a supply teacher who’s lost control.

[DrPatrickBarry]

Maybe some of you guys who live in areas that have not had political strife in centuries, should try discussing the backstop with this bloke.
https://youtu.be/8cZe2ihEZO8

[Witton Park]

TM mentioned the "deal" with almost every answer yesterday in the Commons. Most are talking about her deal.

But this isn't a deal, it is a two part arrangement.

1. The Withdrawal Agreement sets out in an international treaty how we will hand over a shed load of money which hasn't been set out for us to scrutinise the breakdown. It will move us on 29th March in to what I would call a holding area where we will still be under the EU umbrella but without a say.
Most of what is held in this legal text is costing the UK, or uncomfortable and inconvenient for the UK.

2. The Future Arrangement, set out in a letter of intent. This is really the part where we want meat on the bone.

The ground we give in the Withdrawal Agreement is counter-balanced by the Future arrangement.

But 2 is largely worthless. It will have been put together by a UK PM that might not be around in a few weeks (with a little luck) and an EU that will look at lot different after the Spring with new Commissioners and a new Parliament.
and it has no legal standing.

and if we cannot agree a future arrangement in the period after 29th March we will be held in that holding arrangement indefinitely. Some have suggested that we will be able to break out eventually, but that really is well in to the next decade and will be a time consuming process, mired in legal challenges.

This should be handled like an exchange of contracts in a house purchase. If we accept that the EU cannot sign a deal with a member and has to wait until we are a 3rd country, then at the very least we should have a signature ready Future Arrangement, ready to sign on 230th March with both agreements held by a neutral party for a signing either side of 11:00pm on the 29th.

That seems unlikely to happen, as the EU repeatedly has insisted it would breach it's rules to discuss such detail with a 3rd country.

So my only conclusion now is that we should make ourselves a 3rd country on March the 29th, not sign the Withdrawal Agreement.

Then the EU can satisfy it's own bureaucratic red lines and hold twin track discussions in tandem on our responsibilities for leaving alongside the discussions on our future relationship.

[noel]

Good points WP, there's a lot of sense in what you're saying there.

Although I don't particularly admire Teresa May as a politician, when she's done and then is ousted by her "colleagues" she deserves a medal for keeping going through this. I think most people would have got to the "OK, you do better - I'm off" stage by now.

[Muddy Retriever]

Although I don't particularly admire Teresa May as a politician, when she's done and then is ousted by her "colleagues" she deserves a medal for keeping going through this. I think most people would have got to the "OK, you do better - I'm off" stage by now.

The problem in my opinion is not her perseverance but that she keeps making horrendous mistakes. They are numerous but the worst one of all is not to plan for no-deal. We keep hearing from the Government stories of doom if we exit without a deal. But if that is true then why haven't they been making concrete plans to manage it? Surely leaving without a deal was always a possible outcome if the UK couldn't come to an agreement with the EU. By not making proper plans, the Government has made it more likely.

I cannot understand what Theresa May hopes to achieve by delaying the vote in Parliament and going back to the EU. They are not going to take the backstop out of the withdrawal treaty, indeed she is not even going to ask them to. A few warm words from the EU about how they don't want it to come into force will not change the legal reality of an international treaty. So all May is doing is kicking the can down the road for a few weeks when the Government should be using the time left available to put the infrastructure in place for a managed no-deal.

[noel]

I think a managed no-exit is more likely than a managed no-deal. And that's probably Teresa May's opinion too.

[Muddy Retriever]

I think a managed no-exit is more likely than a managed no-deal. And that's probably Teresa May's opinion too.

I agree, that is more likely.

Whenever any country in Europe has voted against the EU, it has always been overturned, either by making the people vote again to make the "correct" decision or ignoring the result completely. I actually thought we would be different, but now I'm beginning to doubt it.

[Witton Park]

I'm with MR on May's errors. She has made several big errors, going against the advise of (sometimes) more experienced cabinet colleagues and going along with advisors and civil servants.
1. Lack of planning for no deal - most of which will be required anyway.
2. The timetabling
3. The General Election.
4. The December 2017 document that introduced the backstop concept.
5. Chequers - all Brexit legislation has passed until Chequers - nothing since and the Govt went from having 10 or so rebels, to having around 100 including most of those original 10.
There are more, but yesterday morning they were still proceeding with the vote so pulling it is just the latest case.

So quite how any can support her, I don't know, especially when you consider her long tenure as Home Secretary and Windrush and the net migration target.

She lacks competence and judgement and so do key members of her team such as Hammond. The National Insurance issue from a previous budget and this years issue with the gaming machines that led to the resignation of a minister before they back-pedalled.

Back in November 2016 I watched the DEXU Select Committee take evidence from 3 International Trade and Law experts, including one who has worked extensively with WTO.

The WTO bloke said then that under WTO rules the EU and UK can lodge a deal with the WTO that extends the current trading arrangements for a temporary period (he indicated 2-3 years) before other WTO members would get irked and try and do something about it.

Such an extension would be on the understanding that it was to allow time to sign off on a full Free Trade Agreement.

So the answer to me is clear from the UK perspective.

1. We advise the EU that we cannot accept many of the details in the Withdrawal Agreement and so will shelve it until March 30th.
2. We will leave on 29th March without a formal trade deal.
3. We offer unilateral residency rights to EU citizens as set out in the WA.
4. We invite the EU to apply to the WTO to extend the current trading arrangements.
5. We agree to maintain all current standards and regs so that we can enter those talks in full alignment, even though a 3rd country.
6. We roll over current WTO arrangements with 3rd countries - something already more or less done.
7. We start now, setting up the schemes to handle cross border trade remote from the border, at all borders.

Then on March 30th we can start a process of fulfilling the Withdrawal Agreement without some of the unnecessary BS and we can jointly work on the future relationship, should the EU want to talk trade and other alliances with us.

[DrPatrickBarry]

Whenever any country in Europe has voted against the EU, it has always been overturned, either by making the people vote again

This chestnut keeps coming up. Maybe a bit of facts will help.

In Ireland during both the Nice and Lisbon referendums, the No campaigners repeatedly argued that the treaties would change Irish laws on abortion, and undermine Ireland’s military neutrality amoung other "vague" critisms. Following the defeats the Irish goverment got the EU to harden up the treaty language in these areas to alay those fears, before going back to the people again. Somehow that is percieved as a "bad thing".

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...n-eu-treaties/
"In the second round, however, the arguments changed. The Yes side argued that Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side. With the Edinburgh Agreement, Denmark would have four opt-outs in the fields of European citizenship, economic and monetary union, defence policy, and justice and home affairs. Ireland, on the other hand, gained guarantees concerning its military neutrality with the Seville Declaration after the Nice referendum, and on the Irish commissioner, competency over tax rates, abortion, neutrality, and workers’ rights after the Lisbon referendum."

Now that people actually have an idea of what brexit will look like, as opposed to the fantasy that was peddled during the referendum, what is wrong with asking them again?

But even as a remainer but I am not convienced by the people's vote, because even if brexit was reversed, no way would the UK become a happy member of the EU. It might be better to let it go ahead, and in a generation's time, when they realize what a horrible mistake it was the UK can revisit the decision again.

[Muddy Retriever]

Patrick, you obviously know more about the Irish referendums than me. But what do you think about the French and Dutch referendums of 2005? In both cases the EU constitution was rejected. The EU went on to create the Lisbon Treaty which was substantially the same thing. This time the French and Dutch electorate did not get a referendum. As Jean-Claude Junker said at the time “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,” And that's just what they did.

Here of course having a referendum on the EU constitution was a 2005 Labour Party manifesto pledge. Once elected they reneged on it.