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

[ragingpup]

The way the land lays at the moment nobody has a clue what the final deal could end up to be so for me I would rather just get out and then work from there. And you are dead wrong about not needing us because they do and without our funding the EU is only going down.

True that we don't know the final deal, we only have the sparse outline on the 7 pages. But that gives us enough info to see the direction May wants to travel, along with all verbal arguments from her statements. We could balance that alongside the more widely researched implications of exiting to No Deal, and Remain. Much more informed than 2016

[KerrAvon]

True that we don't know the final deal, we only have the sparse outline on the 7 pages. But that gives us enough info to see the direction May wants to travel, along with all verbal arguments from her statements. We could balance that alongside the more widely researched implications of exiting to No Deal, and Remain. Much more informed than 2016

It doesn't just indicate the direction that May wants to travel; the document is a joint EU/UK document and shows where both parties are planning to go. I understand that the document will be expanded to around 20 pages later this week, but you won't get much more until after we have left next year as the EU has consistently refused to enter final deal talks until after the withdrawal deal has been ratified. Those pesky Europeans just keep on insisting upon having a say rather than accepting everything that the UK wants.

Kerr's top tip for the next hot topic will be fishing. We hold a very significant portion of total EU fisheries and the French, Spanish and Danish in particular are fizzing at the prospect of access being denied in the final deal. It's nice to actually hold one of the cards for once.

[KerrAvon]

In response to your responses:

1. Why do you think that it hurts the EU to keep the CU arrangements in place over the transition period? I don't think that there was any danger of an end to that, by nature it is facilitating a transition.

In what way have the EU agreed to scrap CAP, CFP and end free movement, as you claim here? I've noticed the government are claiming this to be the case, but where does it state this to be the case in the agreement thus far? I've gone through the document you linked to but can't see this?

During the transition period (currently set to end on December 31st 2020) we remain members of the Single Market and Customs Union. We will be subject to EU legislation and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but we won't be members of the EU and won't be able to influence the making of legislation that we will be subject to. It's going to be a bit like a Norway solution.

During the transition period, we will try to negotiate a deal to cover our future relationship with the EU. If that isn't complete by the end of the period, the backstop contained within the Withdrawal Agreement that was published last week comes into play. We don't like it because it is not time limited and cannot be unilaterally ended. The Europeans don't like it, because they fear that access to the CU without full regulation might give the UK a competitive advantage. It is in the deal because it solves the Irish border problem.

The document that I linked to is the Political Statement setting our an initial framework for a post transition future relationship. It isn't the withdrawal deal, which is over 500 pages long and deals with freedom of movement, CFP and CAP. I could, perhaps, have been clearer when linking to it, but overestimated your understanding of the situation. I understand that the Political Statement is likely to be expanded later in the week.

2. You claim powerlessness, and that you have no say in any part of future proceedings. Why so passive? It's true that your party are blackmailing us with 'This Deal or No Deal' but that just isn't the case. But lot's of us are standing up to it and encouraging our MPs to reject it until we see a clear future commitment to protecting a) the economy via the CU and b) protection of our workers rights and c) protection of the environment. I personally do not care that this will involve compromise over free movement and ECJ - simply as I don't trust May, and most certainly not Mogg et al to protect these rights in the event of our detachment from the EU. You may doubt that this type of deal would get through parliament - but would any? Why not fight for our type of deal as opposed to capitulation.

I don't doubt for a second that should the EU get a sense that this type of deal was on the cards via a change of UK negotiating team, be it via general election or a wish from the public that they wanted a 2nd referendum (as this was seen as the preferred outcome in recent polling when compared to May's deal or No Deal, the EU would give us the time required to reach a new deal or vote to end the deal if the public had the option of May's Deal/No Deal/Remain.

I think however that there is a danger if May falls and the Tories elect a hard Brexiteer, who rip up the deal and ask the EU to renegotiate. I think that the EU would walk away at that point as there would be no point even starting. I concede that is a danger. Starmer seems to be anticipating that: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...no-deal-brexit. This would be a good outcome and allow parliament (and us if it comes to that) to vote without a loaded gun pointing at our own heads.

If you mean the Tories by ‘your party’ I don't think they are blackmailing anyone and neither would you if you gave it some thought and tried to move away from pointless games. They are as split as are Labour and the rest of the country – I would have thought that pretty obvious. If the EU mean what they say when they rule out any further negotiation then it's either the deal on the table or no deal. In your belief, you are falling into the trap that the Leave campaigners did in forgetting that the EU get a say in what happens.

When we know what the post transition deal looks like, I will assess it and possibly waste time writing to my MP if I'm not happy, but as we don't have such a deal at the moment, I can't comment upon it.

You may not mind freedom of movement and the continuing jurisdiction of the ECJ, but I think that many Leave voters would feel betrayed by such an outcome. Labour will get panned at the polls if it stand on such a deal (but go ahead if you think it a good idea}; I don’t think you will get away with trying to hide the reality of such a deal from the electorate.

It doesn’t need the election of a hard Brexiteer to rip up the deal. The hard Brexiteers are planning to do it with a Parliamentary vote, assisted by Labour (you say that you are encouraging your MP to do just that).

The Guardian article that you linked to shows that, disappointingly, Starmer continues to play politics to try to whip in the Labour MPs who are considering siding with May on the deal. It is impossible for Labour 'to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal', because, again, it is not just the UK who get a say in it and the EU are not bound by votes in the UK Parliament. They don’t want a no deal outcome, but I don’t think there is any real room for movement by them. The best you could hope for would be a series of mini deals on specific policy areas to try to mitigate some of the effects of a no deal outcome.

[ragingpup]

The document that I linked to is the Political Statement setting our an initial framework for a post transition future relationship. It isn't the withdrawal deal, which is over 500 pages long and deals with freedom of movement, CFP and CAP. I could, perhaps, have been clearer when linking to it, but overestimated your understanding of the situation. I understand that the Political Statement is likely to be expanded later in the week.

.

My understanding is perfectly clear Kerr - you are doing the same as what your party are doing in their selling of the deal to the general public: you are trying to pass off the agreement in the withdrawal document and mislead us with repeated statements that we have achieved concessions on CU, Freedom of Movement, ECJ - as if that these are in the future trading agreement.

I repeat, I have looked through the 7 page document that you linked to - where is the joint agreement between the UK and EU that both sides are aiming to agree freedom of movement, ECJ and a permanent CU deal? Of course it's not there. The idea is to get this through and then off they run with a blank cheque into the future agreement negotiations. There is a huge deception in how the Tories are portraying this 'deal' to the public, and as always, you are mirroring your party precisely on here.

Will we see through it? Oddly enough, if I was stupid enough to agree to this (and yes, I'm in touch with my MP Wes Streeting (no Corbynite I can tell you!) to get my voice heard), knowing May (if she stayed in charge) I would be less likely to be stitched up than those holding out hopes for a harder Brexit. Her instincts are to pretect the economy, but how can I (or you, or anyone) just roll over and accept agreeing to this loose, vague 7 page sketch with no mention of the things that mattered to those that voted in the referendum.

I took it for granted, it was obvious, that the transition process, would retain pretty much all of what we already have. It wouldn't be much of a transition period if it didn't would it But to take hat and sell it as providing what any of us voted for is deception in the extreme.

[BigLadonOS]

The problem with all this bullshine as I see it is that May went in there asking what the EU would be happy with for us to leave on good terms and that was the wrong thing to do from the start, she should have gone in there with all guns blazing and dictating what was acceptable to us to make a deal (some small negotiation obviously).

We have them over a barrel if they were intelligent enough to see it. If we walk away with a no deal and we make it work (and I know we will) then the EU is on to a loser but as it is this shower have no clue as to how strong our position is in what the future of the EU holds.

[KerrAvon]

I'm sorry, raging, but you don't understand and the more you post, the more that becomes clear.

The transition period is not being sold as anything other than a transition period. Free movement, CAP and CFP all continue during it. The debate now is about what happens at the end of that period if no future arrangement deal is in place and the backstop comes into play.

It's a three stage process and you are conflating two of the stages.

You spent several days getting terribly excited about what members of the Leave campaign and government said they hoped to achieve in the negotiations. Most of those claims floundered because the people making them were hopelessly optimistic about what the EU would be willing to concede. You are making exactly the same mistake in assuming that the EU will come back to the table in any significant way if the withdrawal deal gets voted down. Talk to you MP by all means, but understand that you are asking him to side with Rees-Mogg et al in working for a likely no deal outcome. That being said, I'm sure you will find a way to blame the Tories if Labour help to deliver that outcome.

[ragingpup]

I'm sorry, raging, but you don't understand and the more you post, the more that becomes clear.

The transition period is not being sold as anything other than a transition period. Free movement, CAP and CFP all continue during it. The debate now is about what happens at the end of that period if no future arrangement deal is in place and the backstop comes into play.

It's a three stage process and you are conflating two of the stages.

You spent several days getting terribly excited about what members of the Leave campaign and government said they hoped to achieve in the negotiations. Most of those claims floundered because the people making them were hopelessly optimistic about what the EU would be willing to concede. You are making exactly the same mistake in assuming that the EU will come back to the table in any significant way if the withdrawal deal gets voted down. Talk to you MP by all means, but understand that you are asking him to side with Rees-Mogg et al in working for a likely no deal outcome. That being said, I'm sure you will find a way to blame the Tories if Labour help to deliver that outcome.

I’m perfectly clear thanks and am conflating nowt.

My understanding is that there are these three aspects that are being discussed:

1. The Chequers proposal, what the government would like to achieve
2. The EU/UK withdrawal agreement that highlights what the working arrangements will be during transition. All pretty much as you were, as I would have expected
3. A brief outline, by the EU and UK highlighting some principles of the future trading arrangement beyond the transition.
Ok?

We both agree that FM, CAP and CFP will all continue during the transition period. No confusion there – except of course huge protests from all sides, but that ain’t my concern.

My concern, as I keep saying is that these claims have been made in the last 2 days in TV interviews and statements by our PM:

• This deal will allow us to take control of our borders
• This deal will allow us to make our own laws free of the ECJ

As far as I can see, these statements are relating to the future trade agreement. Don’t they?

And then you yourself said that it must have pained the EU to have made concessions on FM, CAP and CFP.
Your referring to a future trading arrangement. Aren’t you? How else can you speak as if they have agreed to these terms?
If not, what are they and you referring to? If these specific proposals are in the FUTURE TRADE proposals between the UK and the EU then I can’t find them. So please let me where I can find them.

If you can’t find them, please enlighten me exactly why your party are making the claims that we will enjoy these in our future trade agreement?

If they aren’t claiming that we will enjoy FM, CAP and CFP in our future trading agreement, where are they saying we will enjoy them?
And don’t you think that they will come at some considerable expense of our access to the customs union and single market in the future trade negotiations if those are our government priorities?

Finally, I’ll repeat that I do not think a voting down of the agreement in the commons = No Deal. Again, you are repeating your party’s mantra and I don’t see why the EU would walk away from a commons refusal that would lead to a change of negotiating team, either by GE or 2nd vote. Why would they? They know that a Labour driven negotiating team, or even better for them, a vote to remain is massively in their interests. I do understand that such an action would result in the destruction of your party, and the possible introduction of the Great Leader as our PM, but we’d just have to put up with that wouldn’t we?

(But I agree that, in all seriousness, that if the Hard Brexiteers take hold of power in the event of a commons rejection and May stepping down, that is the danger of No Deal. The EU wouldn’t stand for that. And I wouldn’t blame them. I accept that that is a risk)

[KerrAvon]

Ok raging, your post confirms where you are going wrong.

The EU/UK withdrawal agreement that highlights what the working arrangements will be during transition. All pretty much as you were, as I would have expected.

The transition period is not governed by the withdrawal agreement (save that it acknowledges its existence). The transition period was agreed in March when David Davis was at the Brexit helm. The Labour Party supported it (Keir Starmer called it a step in the right direction) and I would be surprised if anybody other than ultra-hard line leavers are seriously opposed to it. It basically says that we stay as we are from when we leave on 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020, save that we don’t get any say in making the rules that we have to comply with – hence it being like the Norwegian model that you favour

The withdrawal agreement that was put forward last week is contained within a 500+ page document which you can read here:

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

The withdrawal agreement sets out our financial obligations to the EU and confirms that at the end of the transition period, free movement and membership of the CAP and CFP ends, amongst lots of other technical matters.

The primary purpose of the transition period is to allow time for the negotiation of a future trade agreement. The EU say that they will not enter substantive talks about that until after we have left next March. Davis tried to negotiate a trade deal alongside the withdrawal agreement, but was repeatedly rebuffed.

Where it gets contentious is that the withdrawal agreement contains a ‘backstop’ which provides that if a future trade relationship is not agreed by 31st December 2020, the entire UK will remain in the Customs Union, the sole purpose of which is to prevent the creation of a customs border on the island of Ireland. It’s not popular in the UK because remaining in the CU means accepting the continuing partial jurisdiction of the ECJ and hampers our ability to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world. The DUP don’t like it, because it contains some additional checks on trade across the Irish Sea (over and above those that already exist and have done for years, mostly in respect of bio-security…). The EU doesn’t like it, because it is seen as a risk to the integrity of the CU and some fear that it could give the UK a competitive advantage in EU markets.

The real bone of contention in the UK is that the backstop is, if triggered, not time limited and cannot be ended unilaterally by the UK (although, as I have said, in practice it can be, if we are willing to deal with the backlash from the EU for breaking the terms of the agreement).

My concern, as I keep saying is that these claims have been made in the last 2 days in TV interviews and statements by our PM:

• This deal will allow us to take control of our borders
• This deal will allow us to make our own laws free of the ECJ

As far as I can see, these statements are relating to the future trade agreement. Don’t they And then you yourself said that it must have pained the EU to have made concessions on FM, CAP and CFP.
Your referring to a future trading arrangement. Aren’t you? How else can you speak as if they have agreed to these terms?
If not, what are they and you referring to? If these specific proposals are in the FUTURE TRADE proposals between the UK and the EU then I can’t find them. So please let me where I can find them.

You can find them in the draft withdrawal agreement. You are the only person – lay person or politician- who is suggesting they aren’t there. Don’t you think Rees-Mogg or the press would have picked it up if May were telling porkies about its contents?

I have never said that it pained the EU to make concessions on FM, CAP and CFP. None of them need feature in a trade agreement, but may do. It is hard, however, to see the EU and May falling back from the position already agreed in the draft withdrawal agreement.

You seem to have tied yourself up in knots searching the joint EU/UK political statement that I linked to (not realising that you are not au fait with the sequencing of leaving and the nature and number of the documents in play - sorry). That statement is entirely separate to the draft withdrawal agreement and is, in essence, a framework for future trade negotiations.

I understand your position on the willingness of the EU (not Teresa May) to go back on everything it has said in the last few days about the draft withdrawal statement being their final offer. I just think you are likely to be proved wrong. A couple of days ago you were running around like a hyperactive puppy about something David Davis said in January 2017 about the deal he hoped to get in the withdrawal negotiations. He failed because the EU stayed remarkably united in saying ‘non/nein’ until he got the message and May got a grip of him at Chequers. You and Labour are going to be left with a lot of no deal egg on your face if it turns out that you have made the same mistake as him. Unfortunately, the rest of the country will get a portion too.

As for Corbyn winning a GE, it’s a bit like the collective wet dream that Labour seemed to have after the 2016 GE, when he rattled on about preparing an alternative Queen’s speech. I just don’t see the mechanism of how it is supposed to happen.

Sure, the DUP are a bit cross and are doing some sabre rattling, but do you think seriously think they would risk bringing down the Tories and having Labour gain power under the current management? They fear being separated from the rest of UK and having a border in the Irish Sea, whereas the current Labour leadership team have spent much of their political lives working for just that outcome. And the DUP MPs are likely to have had friends or family who were gunned down or blown up by people that the current Labour leadership may have backslapped and taken tea with. Northern Irish politics can be bonkers at times, but surely not that bonkers?

[rolymiller]

Get some work done kerr. You spend far too much time on here.find a job or summat...

[great_fire]

Corbyn winning the GE would be funny but not for very long.