O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[ragingpup]

Both those examples follow on after we have left

I don't think that's true Exile. I think leaving with no deal means a complete end to all existing trade arrangements and exit on to WTO terms. So trading with the EU would be on WTO terms.

If we wanted a deal such as those, they would have to be negotiated via the WA and FTA so that we're not blowing everything up in the first place. I think that's true, although I think I hear the thumping of Kerr's jackboots coming down the hall to put me right!

[Exiletyke]

I don't think that's true Exile. I think leaving with no deal means a complete end to all existing trade arrangements and exit on to WTO terms. So trading with the EU would be on WTO terms.

If we wanted a deal such as those, they would have to be negotiated via the WA and FTA so that we're not blowing everything up in the first place. I think that's true, although I think I hear the thumping of Kerr's jackboots coming down the hall to put me right!

Sorry rp badly worded
Should have said
Both examples would need to be negotiated after we leave {if we ever do}

[WanChaiMiller]

Both those examples follow on after we have left

I get that.

My point is this. No deal to trade under WTO rules was not put up as an option during the referendum campaign. During the campaign we were told we would walk into the easiest trade deal ever ( as highlighted above).

No deal only become the default option after the referendum was won when brexiteers realised a free trade deal wouldnt be so easy.

Id contend that voters were misled during the campaign.

[KerrAvon]

Good post Davey. I think that for many of us, the idea of the deal upon leaving (the WA) is that we wanted a clear outline of where we were going at the point of withdrawal - I completely agree that you can argue for that in the future trade agreement, but I think that many wanted a clear outline of what we were going towards. We have no such idea of this in the WA as it stands and that is why those of us that want to see put forward a common market based agreement want their say. It's not that I will refuse anything except such an agreement - I just want to see if there is a greater consensus for this than their is for May's deal or No Deal among our representatives. Likewise 2nd vote and any other option, including No Deal. That's why indicative votes are crucial in untying the knot.

I certainly know of Leave voters that are horrified by the idea of a No Deal. I don't recall any referendum discussions are arguments where leave politicians were eagerly talking down the chance of a deal. You can't simply crash out and then start negotiating a deal from scratch in the hope that all will be dandy - you need to leave with the WA and then negotiate from there.

I don't really get your point on Remain 'splits'. Again, there may have been confused remainers out there but all I know simply wanted to remain in the EU as it was. I don't see why you think these voters might have been split. Seems like rather strained logic to me.

The point of a soft Brexit? To keep as much of the friction free trade arrangements as we possibly can to minimise damage to our economy. Of course we would have to make compromises on this. I see why this would bother harder Brexiteers. But it's a trade that I would make.

You think that I am arguing for a 2nd vote. I'm not. I'm willing to go with what MPs arrive at as the largest consensus from the indicitive votes process. I don't think the 2nd vote has any better chance of getting through than No Deal. However, if we simply can't get anything through, and there is no clear consensus, you may be right to get a clear vote from the public to decide. I personally would leave it there after that, whoever wins. But you're right that many Brexiteers and Reamainers would carry on trying to get their way through. That's the main reason I don't want it to happen. I've just spent the weekend with my wife's familiy who are all going on about the petition, and what the chances are for revoking Brexit or at least another vote. I've been arguing against them on this. But if nothing else gets through, then it may still come to that.

I’m afraid that you simply don’t understand the position that the UK is in and constantly conflate the withdrawal agreement with the future relationship.

The May deal goes well beyond ‘a clear outline of where we were going at the point of withdrawal’. It establishes a clear and legally binding position that will apply on withdrawal. It also establishes a transition period in which it is intended that our future relationship can be negotiated. The EU will not negotiate upon the details of that future relationship until after we have left (April 12th in EU law 29th March in UK law, at the moment). David Davies tried to persuade them to do so for many months and was rebuffed.

In the absences of a settled future relationship, the EU and UK have agreed the political declaration. That does, I would argue, give a ‘a clear outline of where we were going at the end of the transition period’. For example, on trade it says: with a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.

On customs: The economic partnership should ensure no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors, with ambitious customs arrangements that, in line with the Parties' objectives and principles above, build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement which obviates the need for checks on rules of origin.

What more are you looking for in pursuit of your ‘common market based agreement’? And what compromises are you willing to make?

Given that the EU will not negotiate the future relationship until after we have left, what more is it that you actually want over and above the statements within the political declaration?

And even if the ‘largest consensus’ (if there is such a thing) in Parliament turns out to be for your ‘common market based agreement’, where does that leave you? The EU is not going to negotiate upon that until we have left and we are going to have to leave on a no deal, unless Parliament agrees the only withdrawal deal that is on the table. And even then, it matters not how large the consensus is for your deal unless it is sufficient to deliver a Parliamentary majority. If it doesn't, it will not be possible to get the necessary legislation through Parliament.

[WanChaiMiller]

Just by coincidence I saw this article from the New York Times on exactly what I posted above.

Snippet from the article: "Back when Britain voted to leave, “no one was talking about no deal as an outcome,” said Asa Bennett, who covered the referendum for The Telegraph, the daily British newspaper. “The consensus was that of course we’d have a deal. It would be patently obvious. It didn’t even come on the radar.”

The notion that a no-deal exit was an option was powerfully normalized by Mrs. May herself, as negotiations with Brussels bogged down, and the complexities of removal became more obvious."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/w...imes&smtyp=cur

[KerrAvon]

There is a deal, WanChai. It's just that Parliament won't approve it.

[ragingpup]

I’m afraid that you simply don’t understand the position that the UK is in and constantly conflate the withdrawal agreement with the future relationship.

The May deal goes well beyond ‘a clear outline of where we were going at the point of withdrawal’. It establishes a clear and legally binding position that will apply on withdrawal. It also establishes a transition period in which it is intended that our future relationship can be negotiated. The EU will not negotiate upon the details of that future relationship until after we have left (April 12th in EU law 29th March in UK law, at the moment). David Davies tried to persuade them to do so for many months and was rebuffed.

In the absences of a settled future relationship, the EU and UK have agreed the political declaration. That does, I would argue, give a ‘a clear outline of where we were going at the end of the transition period’. For example, on trade it says: with a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.

On customs: The economic partnership should ensure no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors, with ambitious customs arrangements that, in line with the Parties' objectives and principles above, build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement which obviates the need for checks on rules of origin.

What more are you looking for in pursuit of your ‘common market based agreement’? And what compromises are you willing to make?

Given that the EU will not negotiate the future relationship until after we have left, what more is it that you actually want over and above the statements within the political declaration?

And even if the ‘largest consensus’ (if there is such a thing) in Parliament turns out to be for your ‘common market based agreement’, where does that leave you? The EU is not going to negotiate upon that until we have left and we are going to have to leave on a no deal, unless Parliament agrees the only withdrawal deal that is on the table. And even then, it matters not how large the consensus is for your deal unless it is sufficient to deliver a Parliamentary majority. If it doesn't, it will not be possible to get the necessary legislation through Parliament.

"The parties envisage". ""The partnership SHOULD". It doesn't need a future agreement on such central and crucial issues before we actually consent to such huge changes. As I've always said, it amounts to a blank cheque - it needs a solid and legally biding commitment to the direction of travel before legally biding agreement to such a change in our circumstances. If your leader, following 3 years of negotiation canb't provide that, then that's why we are where we're at.

You don't provide a blank cheque for anyone. Least of all a weak leader of the conservative party with a mixture of paranoid europhobes and rights stripping axe wielders behind her.

[KerrAvon]

"The parties envisage". ""The partnership SHOULD". It doesn't need a future agreement on such central and crucial issues before we actually consent to such huge changes. As I've always said, it amounts to a blank cheque - it needs a solid and legally biding commitment to the direction of travel before legally biding agreement to such a change in our circumstances. If your leader, following 3 years of negotiation canb't provide that, then that's why we are where we're at.

You don't provide a blank cheque for anyone. Least of all a weak leader of the conservative party with a mixture of paranoid europhobes and rights stripping axe wielders behind her.

You still don't understand. It takes two parties to agree the future relationship - the EU and the UK. The EU says that it will not negotiate the future relationship until we have left (they say that they cannot under EU law - I know a lawyer who disagrees with that, but I don't know enough about it to comment and we are where we are if that is the EU stance).

Stamping your foot and CAPITALISING isn't going to change anything. The EU aren't going to give you anything on the future relationship that is legally biding (or even binding) until we have left on 12th April or at some indeterminate point in the future. In other words, if you are demanding agreement on the future relationship before we leave, you are arguing not to leave. Or am I missing something?

[ragingpup]

You still don't understand. It takes two parties to agree the future relationship - the EU and the UK. The EU says that it will not negotiate the future relationship until we have left (they say that they cannot under EU law - I know a lawyer who disagrees with that, but I don't know enough about it to comment and we are where we are if that is the EU stance).

Stamping your foot and CAPITALISING isn't going to change anything. The EU aren't going to give you anything on the future relationship that is legally biding (or even binding) until we have left on 12th April or at some indeterminate point in the future. In other words, if you are demanding agreement on the future relationship before we leave, you are arguing not to leave. Or am I missing something?

There is a possible majority in parliament that may unite behind the principle of a customs union agreement being built into a revised WA. In this way, we can secure such an agreement, not just agree with the aim of it in the FTA.

Isn’t that what all those moderate tories, labour, libs, TIGs, Greens are pushing for? If it is not possible, why do you think that they are pushing for it this week?

The EU have given indication that they would be in favour of such a revised approach have they not? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47160625

I think that it is you that doesn’t understand here – we’re not proposing bringing the idea of a CU into FTA – we’re talking about drawing a line under the current deal and, if this can gain a majority in the House, rework the WA.

Going back to your point on if no majority can be gained for this idea, even if it is the most popular amongst indicative votes, then I accept your point. That would then be a stalemate. But the indicative process should be managed to lead up to a majority with staged elimination of least popular options leading up to the most popular? Could that work?

[KerrAvon]

What on Earth are you talking about?

The May deal creates a Customs Union hence the passage from the political declaration that I quoted above: ...build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement.... The backstop is also based upon a customs union...

Setting aside Labour's desire to obtain a General Election, what they and the other parties you mention are looking for is a commitment to a Customs Union in the future relationship. You still need a withdrawal agreement - and there is only one on the table - and an agreement on the future relationship, which the EU won't negotiate until we have left.

I'm sorry that you don't get it, but it's clear that a number of MP's don't either so you shouldn't feel too bad.

The EU welcomed Corbyn's willingness to talk to May.

A series of binary votes cannot guarantee majority support for any approach. It can determine which is the most popular option, but if fewer than 50% of MP's support it, the legislation needed to put it into effect will struggle to pass. And it won't bind the government or any future Parliament, in any event.