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

[KerrAvon]

It's started already folks pmsl.

The EU have now said that if May cant get her deal passed they are willing to let us cancel article 50 all together and welcome us back with open arms. I bet they frucking will.

The EU has always been clear that they don't want the UK to leave. Why would they (apart from the fact that we are 'difficult' and tend to oppose the federalist approach of Germany and France)?

The EU were never going to give us a deal that left us with the advantages of membership with none of the responsibilities or costs. Why would they? To think otherwise was a Leaver fantasy. In addition, it has always been clear (to the majority of people in business and government) that Brexit comes at an economic cost with, in my judgement, little prospect of the EU giving any substantial ground.

I appreciate that you favour leaving without a deal. That is the only outcome that doesn't require a Parliamentary majority, but the Grieve amendment last night reduces the prospect of that as I suspect there would at the very least be a majority for seeking an extension of the Article 50 period to allow for more negotiations - i.e. an extension of the period of uncertainty in which investment and business and consumer confidence will be damaged.

You didn't want to share the outcome of your digging yesterday, but can you at least give a hint about what specifically about the May deal you don't like? It ends freedom of movement and contributions to the EU budget. It leaves us in control of our fisheries and agricultural policies. Isn't that that people voted for?

[ragingpup]

You didn't want to share the outcome of your digging yesterday, but can you at least give a hint about what specifically about the May deal you don't like? It ends freedom of movement and contributions to the EU budget. It leaves us in control of our fisheries and agricultural policies. Isn't that that people voted for?

Are you saying that May's deal guarantees an end to freedom of movement. EU contributions and control of our fisheries and agricultural at the end of the transition period? So Leave voters on here can rest assured that if they pressure their MP to accept May's deal, these 'benefits' will come to them, guaranteed, once the NI situation is sorted out?

[KerrAvon]

Are you saying that May's deal guarantees an end to freedom of movement. EU contributions and control of our fisheries and agricultural at the end of the transition period? So Leave voters on here can rest assured that if they pressure their MP to accept May's deal, these 'benefits' will come to them, guaranteed, once the NI situation is sorted out?

I thought you'd given up.

You are conflating the transition period, the withdrawal agreement, the backstop and the future relationship, but no matter.

There is a concept in English law called the legislative supremacy of Parliament, which provides, amongst other things, that a government cannot bind a future government. If, for example, you got your wish and we entered the freedom of movement, EU budget contributions and access to fisheries of a Norweigan model, there would be nothing to prevent another government coming along, recognising the insanity of that and pulling us out. It follows that, in that sense, nothing is guaranteed.


The May deal provides for an end to freedom of movement. EU contributions and for us taking control of our fisheries and agricultural policies at the end of the transition period. There is no reason to believe that freedom of movement would feature in a future trade deal, not least because I suspect that the electorate wouldn't stand for it. Similarly there is no reason to believe that contributions would resume. I suspect that deals will be done on fishing because it is in the interests of both the EU and UK to do so.

[ragingpup]

The May deal provides for an end to freedom of movement. EU contributions and for us taking control of our fisheries and agricultural policies at the end of the transition period. There is no reason to believe that freedom of movement would feature in a future trade deal, not least because I suspect that the electorate wouldn't stand for it. Similarly there is no reason to believe that contributions would resume. I suspect that deals will be done on fishing because it is in the interests of both the EU and UK to do so.

So, if May gets the deal through and remains in power to continue the future trade negotiations, does her deal guarantee that she will end FoM, EU contributions and ECJ?

Isn't one of the main reasons for such vehement opposition to her deal not only the fact that we could be locked indefinitely into the EU but also the fact that if we did sort out the backstop there is insufficient detail in the future trade intentions to give any assurance to Leavers that May wouldn't back down on these 'benefits' as soon as EU countries wanted to swing trade in their interests (Macron has already made it clear that this is what he is going to do to protect France's interests). Why should anyone back the deal when there is so little detail or certainty agreed in the 2 years of talks since 2016?

[KerrAvon]

So, if May gets the deal through and remains in power to continue the future trade negotiations, does her deal guarantee that she will end FoM, EU contributions and ECJ?

Isn't one of the main reasons for such vehement opposition to her deal not only the fact that we could be locked indefinitely into the EU but also the fact that if we did sort out the backstop there is insufficient detail in the future trade intentions to give any assurance to Leavers that May wouldn't back down on these 'benefits' as soon as EU countries wanted to swing trade in their interests (Macron has already made it clear that this is what he is going to do to protect France's interests). Why should anyone back the deal when there is so little detail or certainty agreed in the 2 years of talks since 2016?

There is a concept in English law called the legislative supremacy of Parliament, which provides, amongst other things, that a government cannot bind a future government. If, for example, you got your wish and we entered the freedom of movement, EU budget contributions and access to fisheries of a Norweigan model, there would be nothing to prevent another government coming along, recognising the insanity of that and pulling us out. It follows that, in that sense, nothing is guaranteed.

There is no nice way to say this and I genuinely don't like upsetting you or anyone else, but you don't understand what you are arguing against. My suspicion is that it's May's deal and that's enough to make you oppose it, because she's a Tory..

No, May's deal does not leave us locked indefinitely into the EU. Under it, we leave on 29th March 2019 and enter a transition period that ends on 31st December 2020. If triggered, the backstop provides that we then remain in a customs union until such time as a trade deal is agreed that provides for a soft border on the island of Ireland.

The EU have steadfastly refused to discuss a future trade deal until we have left. It follows that if you want to see what that deal looks like before leaving, you are saying that you don't want to leave by imposing a precondition that cannot be met. The political agreement provides a wish list for a future deal. Of course EU countries will then look to their own interests in the negotiations, just as the UK will. I have made that point in this very thread.

[BigLadonOS]

Kerr, May's deal is covered in a shroud of darkness mate and yes it does leave us locked in to the EU while negotiations go on over the backdrop. There is no set time for that backdrop to have to reach a conclusion and while ever we are in those negotiations we are ruled by the EU laws but this time we have no say in those laws made.

Yes we have partial control over some aspects of what we can do over our borders, fisheries etc but those rules must still fall within what the EU has agreed with us. In other words we will have independence but without independence.

For us to really have our independence with no input at all from the EU all hangs on a deal being made over the backdrop. The negotiations over that backdrop could run on for years if the EU so wanted it too and that is where the deal falls short of actually being a deal at all of any kind. We would be in limbo, still having to contribute to the EU but having no say as what rules are made by the EU.

Such a stupid deal to make.

[ragingpup]

There is a concept in English law called the legislative supremacy of Parliament, which provides, amongst other things, that a government cannot bind a future government. If, for example, you got your wish and we entered the freedom of movement, EU budget contributions and access to fisheries of a Norweigan model, there would be nothing to prevent another government coming along, recognising the insanity of that and pulling us out. It follows that, in that sense, nothing is guaranteed.

There is no nice way to say this and I genuinely don't like upsetting you or anyone else, but you don't understand what you are arguing against. My suspicion is that it's May's deal and that's enough to make you oppose it, because she's a Tory..

No, May's deal does not leave us locked indefinitely into the EU. Under it, we leave on 29th March 2019 and enter a transition period that ends on 31st December 2020. If triggered, the backstop provides that we then remain in a customs union until such time as a trade deal is agreed that provides for a soft border on the island of Ireland.

The EU have steadfastly refused to discuss a future trade deal until we have left. It follows that if you want to see what that deal looks like before leaving, you are saying that you don't want to leave by imposing a precondition that cannot be met. The political agreement provides a wish list for a future deal. Of course EU countries will then look to their own interests in the negotiations, just as the UK will. I have made that point in this very thread.

So if the EU will not discuss the future trade deal, how can you so confidently state that May's deal will give us FoM, freedom from ECJ and ending of contributions?

Haven't we established that the UK and EU have set out a paper identifying some basic agreed principles to work towards? I assume you're referring to that? That does indeed state a shared intention to work towards this but do you really think that we are going to get all of these benefits? You are trying to assure BigLadon and others that May's deal will bring us these benefits. But to swallow this we would have to imagine that:

1. May is a hard, brilliant negotiator
2. The EU are willing to give us these benefits including fishing and agriculture, without huge further concessions on our part.

Sorry to throw a couple more impertinent questions at you, which I know you would never dream of doing to others, but:

1. What do you think that these concessions are likely to be?
2. Why should you advise an electorate to accept a deal that is so vague and open to enormous concessions from us?
3. Do you see May as a hard and brilliant negotiator whom we can trust to extract these benefits in future negotiations without major concessions?

And this is not even factoring in the possibility of being in a non ending Backstop which, whilst being fine for us who like friction-less trade and travel, will no way get the backing of BigLadon et al. Understandably.

[great_fire]

This is organised chaos IMO, our politicians are not that incompetent.

They could have just looked at other non-EU European countries and picked the best stuff from those arrangements but the fact is they don't want to leave as they want to be the next passengers on the gravy train.

I think if they screw the electorate over this time they'll finally come to understand they work for us not the other way round and it will be a hard lesson for them.

[ragingpup]

Kerr, May's deal is covered in a shroud of darkness mate and yes it does leave us locked in to the EU while negotiations go on over the backdrop. There is no set time for that backdrop to have to reach a conclusion and while ever we are in those negotiations we are ruled by the EU laws but this time we have no say in those laws made.

Yes we have partial control over some aspects of what we can do over our borders, fisheries etc but those rules must still fall within what the EU has agreed with us. In other words we will have independence but without independence.

For us to really have our independence with no input at all from the EU all hangs on a deal being made over the backdrop. The negotiations over that backdrop could run on for years if the EU so wanted it too and that is where the deal falls short of actually being a deal at all of any kind. We would be in limbo, still having to contribute to the EU but having no say as what rules are made by the EU.

Such a stupid deal to make.

Just wanted to add this comment from a online abroad Guardian reader:

"Are you guys seriously going to crash out of the EU with no agreements in place, then try to negotiate those deals from outside? Something is seriously wrong with your educational system."

It does sound a bit silly doesn't it? I'm all for respecting the views of the significant minority of the population that are passionate about FoM and seeing us as shackled to the EU, but May's deal being so open ended is ridiculous. Hence why it will be defeated. There is no mandate for it. So why persist in trying to sell it?

[tony2606742]

'Endure indefinitely'

It's over.