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

[KerrAvon]

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.

I think you mean backstop.

There is no shroud of darkness over the May deal. It's available in full online here:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...greement_0.pdf

The May deal gives complete control over borders (save that the Republic/Northern Ireland border is open - which it has been since 1922 for all intents and purposes, save for a short period during WW2), ends contributions to the EU budget and fisheries are explicitly excluded from any sort of EU control. Whilst the backstop is in place, we will be required to comply with EU regulations in force on any goods traded into the EU, but what is new there? Even with a hard Brexit, Toyotas built in Derby etc. would have to comply with EU emissions and safety regulations if they are sold into the EU. As it stands, for example, Range Rovers produced in the UK and sold into, say, China, America or Japan will comply with Chinese, American and Japanese regulations in much the same way that, say, Chinese electrical goods traded into the UK will have to comply with EU regs. That's how international trade works

The backstop could indeed last for years, but you have to bear in mind that the EU don't like it, for the reasons that I will set out below. And I reiterate, we are not required to pay into the EU during any backstop period.

[KerrAvon]

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.

I have spent the afternoon wondering if you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you genuinely don’t get it. I’m reminded of the Blackadder scene in which Edmund starts an explanation to Baldrick with ‘Alright, let's start with the basics: “English is a non-inflected Indo-European language derived from dialects of”…’

We know what May’s withdrawal deal says because it is available to read at the link that I gave BigLadon. On freedom of movement, access to fisheries and contributions to the EU budget it is unequivocal. They end. Look by all means, but I think you will struggle to find even a single Labour MP in his or her most febrile GE hungry state who suggests otherwise…

We don’t know what the future trade arrangement will look like, because it hasn’t been negotiated yet. Whether you or I like it or not, the EU has refused to negotiate on that until after withdrawal. Davis spent a couple of months banging his head on that particular wall and came away with nothing but a headache.

As I have pointed out, every EU country will want to take an advantage out of the future relationship. So will the UK. That’s how negotiations work.

I’ve never met May, but I know a couple of people who have worked with her who speak very highly of her. But as for your question about whether she is a skilled negotiator, let’s compare what she has negotiated compared to you your preferred Norway model:

Freedom of movement: Norway - unrestricted. May – no freedom of movement
Fisheries: Norway: – extensive access for EU trawlers. May – no automatic access
Customs Union: Norway – access. May – access under the backstop (if triggered) until replaced by an arrangement that makes the backstop unnecessary.
Budget contributions: Norway – the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget. May – zilch – not one penny.

If Cameron had come back with half of that in his pre-Referendum attempt to obtain concessions from the EU, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because the country would have voted remain. Barnier repeatedly told us that we couldn’t have our cake and eat it and that we couldn’t have a UK wide customs unions backstop, but May delivered it. It’s akin to cancelling the membership of a gym, but then negotiating free access to the pool and sauna (and changing rooms).

As for the fears of a never ending backstop – I would firstly point out that is what you are arguing for permanent continued membership of the customs union via the Norway model. Secondly, the EU would dislike that arrangement far more than the UK, given that we taking the benefits without paying the subs and exposing EU markets to the risk of competition from the UK that they would struggle to handle.

I expect concessions on fisheries, because it is in the clear interest of both parties for there to be.

Finally, I would observe that I am not advising the electorate to accept anything. I don’t have a say and neither do the electorate at large. I’ve kind of made that point before.

[KerrAvon]

'Endure indefinitely'

It's over.

I agree that there will be a lot of politicking about it, but it's old news for people who actually read the agreement before critcising it:

Post 261 (18th November) and other places:

I feel the same disquiet that many MPs do about the deal, which is that the backstop is not time limited and cannot be unilaterally ended by the UK

[KerrAvon]

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?

Perhaps he, like you, didn’t realise that the EU are not willing to talk future trade until after we have left? As I mentioned earlier if you are arguing for us to have done that, you are arguing for us not to leave, which is fair enough –it’s valid opinion- but you could just come out and say it.

[ragingpup]

I have spent the afternoon wondering if you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you genuinely don’t get it. I’m reminded of the Blackadder scene in which Edmund starts an explanation to Baldrick with ‘Alright, let's start with the basics: “English is a non-inflected Indo-European language derived from dialects of”…’

We know what May’s withdrawal deal says because it is available to read at the link that I gave BigLadon. On freedom of movement, access to fisheries and contributions to the EU budget it is unequivocal. They end. Look by all means, but I think you will struggle to find even a single Labour MP in his or her most febrile GE hungry state who suggests otherwise…

We don’t know what the future trade arrangement will look like, because it hasn’t been negotiated yet. Whether you or I like it or not, the EU has refused to negotiate on that until after withdrawal. Davis spent a couple of months banging his head on that particular wall and came away with nothing but a headache.

As I have pointed out, every EU country will want to take an advantage out of the future relationship. So will the UK. That’s how negotiations work.

I’ve never met May, but I know a couple of people who have worked with her who speak very highly of her. But as for your question about whether she is a skilled negotiator, let’s compare what she has negotiated compared to you your preferred Norway model:

Freedom of movement: Norway - unrestricted. May – no freedom of movement
Fisheries: Norway: – extensive access for EU trawlers. May – no automatic access
Customs Union: Norway – access. May – access under the backstop (if triggered) until replaced by an arrangement that makes the backstop unnecessary.
Budget contributions: Norway – the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget. May – zilch – not one penny.

If Cameron had come back with half of that in his pre-Referendum attempt to obtain concessions from the EU, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because the country would have voted remain. Barnier repeatedly told us that we couldn’t have our cake and eat it and that we couldn’t have a UK wide customs unions backstop, but May delivered it. It’s akin to cancelling the membership of a gym, but then negotiating free access to the pool and sauna (and changing rooms).

As for the fears of a never ending backstop – I would firstly point out that is what you are arguing for permanent continued membership of the customs union via the Norway model. Secondly, the EU would dislike that arrangement far more than the UK, given that we taking the benefits without paying the subs and exposing EU markets to the risk of competition from the UK that they would struggle to handle.

I expect concessions on fisheries, because it is in the clear interest of both parties for there to be.

Finally, I would observe that I am not advising the electorate to accept anything. I don’t have a say and neither do the electorate at large. I’ve kind of made that point before.

Genuine question. If May's deal goes through, and future trade negotiations begin, can the EU and the UK modify or withdraw the 'end' to Freedom of Movement in order to get concessions?

[KerrAvon]

Which leads me on to another question ..when will time run out to negotiate a deal? Can we assume the end of March next year is yer lot but if there is a different govt in surely it makes sense for the EU to give it another go.


Questions, questions, questions. Some fecker ought to make a movie out of this balls up one day! Its got everything: scandal, intrigue, cowardice, treachery, gross incompetence, stupid haircuts (Boris), the lot!The only thing it lacks is romance! Maybe if May shags Juncker for a better deal the romance will be provided.(Sooner him than me !)

On when a decision needs to be made, the Grieve amendment yesterday was a very clever piece of politics (who was behind it is the hot question) and far more significant than the contempt proceedings. I think you will find that if Parliament blocks May, they will also resolve to ask for an extension to the article 50 period to allow for further negotiations. That will be damaging to the UK given the continued uncertainty for businesses who are waiting to make investment decisions.

I'm certain that books are already being written. Expect a raft of them as the various players retire and look to bolster their pensions.

[KerrAvon]

Genuine question. If May's deal goes through, and future trade negotiations begin, can the EU and the UK modify or withdraw the 'end' to Freedom of Movement in order to get concessions?

I won't repeat the legislative supremacy of Parliament bit again, because it upsets Exile, but a future Parliament can do what it pleases subject to the restraints imposed upon it by Parliamentary procedure and, more importantly, the desire to be re-elected. The EU can’t impose or modify freedom of movement (how could it), the UK could agree to it. I just think it very unlikely that May would give up what is quite clearly the jewel in the crown of the exit deal insofar as domestic politics is concerned.

As for what a future government might do – we take our politicians on trust. If Corbyn got into power, he could try to use football stadia to liquidate the aristocracy, bankers and dangerous intellectuals but even I don’t think that he would. It’s enough for me that he wants to destroy the UK economy.

[great_fire]

Phrases like "crash out" and "bomb out" are more biased media manipulation.

[great_fire]

When was this GF?

Corbyn invited Sammy Woodhouse to come to the the H of C today.

And she went, I would have told him to piss off frankly after what Rotherham's Labour Council have put her through.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...house-13690070

[ragingpup]

I won't repeat the legislative supremacy of Parliament bit again, because it upsets Exile, but a future Parliament can do what it pleases subject to the restraints imposed upon it by Parliamentary procedure and, more importantly, the desire to be re-elected. The EU can’t impose or modify freedom of movement (how could it), the UK could agree to it. I just think it very unlikely that May would give up what is quite clearly the jewel in the crown of the exit deal insofar as domestic politics is concerned.

As for what a future government might do – we take our politicians on trust. If Corbyn got into power, he could try to use football stadia to liquidate the aristocracy, bankers and dangerous intellectuals but even I don’t think that he would. It’s enough for me that he wants to destroy the UK economy.

I get the point about future governments and what they might do. But I (and presumably the country) are not really thinking about future governments. We're thinking about your government and what the possibilities are in the future trade negotiations.

So, narrowing it down somewhat - in plain English - if May succeeds next week (made more likely by the Grieve amendment if the hard Brexiters swallow the 'No Brexit' government line of the week, but that's another issue!) and proceeds into the future trade negotiations, then if the EU play hardball on an issue of concern to them - along the lines Macron suggests, although if we start trying to negotiate towards comprehensive tariff free trade, they may hardball over other issues too, can the Hard Brexiters on this board, and in this country, rest assured that May will not back down and bargain off your crown jewels of FoM, ECJ etc despite your assurances that May has bagged these for us?

These are not antagonistic questions - if I'm confused that you seem to be saying one thing and three questers of our MPs are saying something else, then I'm sure others on here are as thick as I am...