Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
The ERG know the EU aren't going to renegotiate the WA. This is their entire play. They don't want a deal.
Those in the EU that think there's still a deal to be had are not getting the point.
If I were the EU, I'd break off contact, prepare for no deal and wait for the UK to decide what they want.
May just reneged on he deal she negotiated.
 
horsechoker said:
If we're heading down the no deal route then a general election should be held. This government has proven itself inept and untrustworthy to negotiate any future trade deals.

Labour really isn't that much better and in some ways equally responsible for this mess but the blame will be laid at the Conservatives' door
Click to expand...
What you have to remember in all this is that the number one priority for the Government is staying in power, then what is best for the country after that. You only have to look at the amendments against no deal being voted down on party lines last night, despite the fact that everyone (including the Tories voting them down) knows that no deal is the last thing the country needs.
 
This is just so absurd.

Yesterday's vote did not give any new message or new mandate. She spent over a year negotiating the position and then delayed the vote to get the EU to budge on this very issue. Why are they now pretending that only now do the EU know our position on the backstop and for crying out loud someone ask her why she didn't make it clear to them the first or second time!
 
Aren't we just heading towards what May wants with a final vote on her deal vs hard brexit?

In the event of Hard Brexit wining I'd imagine she'd resign, although she might stay on to keep the party in power?
 
Smores said:
This is just so absurd.

Yesterday's vote did not give any new message or new mandate. She spent over a year negotiating the position and then delayed the vote to get the EU to budge on this very issue. Why are they now pretending that only now do the EU know our position on the backstop and for crying out loud someone ask her why she didn't make it clear to them the first or second time!
Click to expand...

She negotiated the backstop, it was shaped to suit her by including the whole of the UK.

She is delaying just to stay in power a little bit longer, that's all.

The EU knows exactly what's going on, the whole world knows exactly what's going on.
 
So Corbyn is willing to meet with May to discuss to protect jobs, Living conditions and Rights of the British people. This is crucial , but i can't help but feel from here on in it's just pissing in the wind.
 
Drifter said:
So Corbyn is willing to meet with May to discuss to protect jobs, Living conditions and Rights of the British people. This is crucial , but i can't help but feel from here on in it's just pissing in the wind.
Click to expand...
Sounds like cancelling Brexit.
 
Corbyn is a Kyte in a hurricane. He's a passenger in this process. He doesn't have the numbers to make any meaningful impact. Not when he has 10+ rebels willing to impose had brexit on us.
Feels like eveeyeve is just in political damage limitation mode.
 
coveney.png


...just reminds me of...
Marlo.jpg
 
Drifter said:
So Corbyn is willing to meet with May to discuss to protect jobs, Living conditions and Rights of the British people. This is crucial , but i can't help but feel from here on in it's just pissing in the wind.
Click to expand...

The part you missed out is that he wants to put forward his alternative proposition about being in a permanent customs union but having different tariffs and negotiating separate trade deals plus having single market acess without following the 4 freedoms. Somehow people still treat him as a serious politician.
 
Adisa said:
It's not. May has shown she will not countenance any solution that breaks her party.
Click to expand...
I'm joking, I know it won't be cancelled. It would just be the best thing to do if the goal is to protect jobs, living conditions etc. Of course that would require politicians to focus on bettering society and not staying in power.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The part you missed out is that he wants to put forward his alternative proposition about being in a permanent customs union but having different tariffs and negotiating separate trade deals plus having single market acess without following the 4 freedoms. Somehow people still treat him as a serious politician.
Click to expand...

You joke but that's when people will use the dreaded "regulatory alignment". I don't even know what they imagine it to be.
 
JPRouve said:
The first point isn't correct, it goes under article 18 of the withdrawal agreements under Safeguards.
Click to expand...

So you are saying in the event that the EU secures a FTA with a third country, which the UK is not a participant of, the UK could unilaterally exit the backstop and no longer be tied to the customs union and all that entails? Or that that EU is prevented from striking FTAs that don't include the UK if the backstop is triggered? Or what?

I think you are wrong and article 18 is not intended to restrict the EU's ability to strike trade deals, or give the UK a way out of the backstop.

JPRouve said:
The second point is just strange, if you ultimately don't want a border we will have to respect the same sets of rules, there is no way to go around it. So UK politicians should stop talking nonsense when it comes to that topic.
Click to expand...
The question, as always, is which rules are applied, who determines them, and what mechanisms for reciprocal recognition can be agreed if they diverge.

JPRouve said:
The third point is also not correct, at least the terms used and the interpretation isn't. The actual name is Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and reviewing mechanism involves both parties and the joint committee.
Click to expand...
The third point is literally from the official legal advice of the UK Attorney General on the risks of the backstop. His view is that if the EU tried to keep NI alone in the customs union and it went to independent arbitration:
...it would "meet the strong objection" that it would contradict the intention of the agreement that the single customs territory should not be "severable".

Mr Cox goes on to assert that if such a proposed change was referred to the panel of independent arbitrators overseeing the backstop it would be unlikely to get approval.

He writes that "it is extremely difficult to see" how the arbitrators would make such a political judgement "in the absence of the consent of the parties."
Click to expand...

However, he concludes it is a real risk to be considered.
 
RedSky said:
The real problem is unless theres a decent turnout of 18-25 year olds in the next election I can totally see the Tories winning again. I'm not even sure how much Labour want to win an Election in any case, they probably think its a poison chalice right now. Hatd to disagree as well given the state the Tories will leave this country in by the time of the next Election.

I was expecting there to have been more calls for a Referendum so it seems like even the MPs have given up and accepted our fate of nose diving towards oblivion. Liberal Democrats could have been the genuine winners here if they'd got a leader with some flair and passion. Sigh.
Click to expand...

I can see people having a problem if they don't want to vote Tory. Labour have their own divisions over Brexit and, after the coalition of 2010, many people - including myself - would find it difficult to vote Lib Dem ever again.
 
JPRouve said:
You joke but that's when people will use the dreaded "regulatory alignment". I don't even know what they imagine it to be.
Click to expand...

It's quite clear that very few of the UK politicians , I'm actually struggling to think of any, have any clue of what is involved. Sadly I'm not joking about Corbyn, he actually believe it's possible.
 
FFS Theresa: Quote from commons speech earlier today:

“Last night, the house did vote to reject no deal. But that cannot be the end of the story. You can’t just vote to reject no deal. You have to vote for a deal. Otherwise you leave with no deal,”

Is this the future of democracy that Brexiteers keep telling us we have to honour or risk riots on the streets? :lol:
 
Adisa said:
The ERG know the EU aren't going to renegotiate the WA. This is their entire play. They don't want a deal.
Those in the EU that think there's still a deal to be had are not getting the point.
If I were the EU, I'd break off contact, prepare for no deal and wait for the UK to decide what they want.
May just reneged on he deal she negotiated.
Click to expand...

Quite true.
But she didn't really have a choice because the deal that she had signed up to will not be accepted by Parliament and she is well aware of that.

The reality is that the vote last night was to:
Go back to the EU to try to reopen the WA.
Get the backstop changed in favour of a different solution to the Irish border. The solution to this does not exist and if it did, would have been identified during the last 2 years of discussion.

So. Have we made any progress?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
So you are saying in the event that the EU secures a FTA with a third country, which the UK is not a participant of, the UK could unilaterally exit the backstop and no longer be tied to the customs union and all that entails? Or that that EU is prevented from striking FTAs that don't include the UK if the backstop is triggered? Or what?

I think you are wrong and article 18 is not intended to restrict the EU's ability to strike trade deals, or give the UK a way out of the backstop.
Click to expand...

Article 18 allows the UK to take any measure that they deem necessary to protect their market, for example not allow certain goods to enter their market which was the point that you were making about tariffs. You have a way to keep a status quo, now you can't use lower tariffs than the Union, I can understand if that is an issue. Also it's important to remember that the agreement recognizes two markets the Union(EU) and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland; I'm not sure if that point has been publicised enough.

For the third point that's not what he says or said. On the part that you quoted he says that the EU could make that type of notification but also points to the fact that it would go against the agreement and that the joint committee would be in an impossible position from a political standpoint, legally it would be straightforward. The important part though is in the previous paragraph and I agree with him, the joint committee is a pain for everyone involved, a clause allowing mutual termination would be a lot better because like he says multiple times, every resolution would have to be political anyway.

What the general attorney proposes is to put politicians in front of their responsibilities from the beginning by simply putting a mutual termination clause, instead of using a joint committee.
 
Buster15 said:
Quite true.
But she didn't really have a choice because the deal that she had signed up to will not be accepted by Parliament and she is well aware of that.

The reality is that the vote last night was to:
Go back to the EU to try to reopen the WA.
Get the backstop changed in favour of a different solution to the Irish border. The solution to this does not exist and if it did, would have been identified during the last 2 years of discussion.

So. Have we made any progress?
Click to expand...
Well Spain wants to go in hard over Gibraltar alongside France over fishing rights if negotiations are reopened.
She could end up with even less if the EU does take her on.
Is that progress?
 
JPRouve said:
Article 18 allows the UK to take any measure that they deem necessary to protect their market, for example not allow certain goods to enter their market which was the point that you were making about tariffs. You have a way to keep a status quo, now you can't use lower tariffs than the Union, I can understand if that is an issue. Also it's important to remember that the agreement recognizes two markets the Union(EU) and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland; I'm not sure if that point has been publicised enough.
Click to expand...
And how exactly would we 'not allow certain goods to enter' our market in this instance? As these goods would be freely circulating in the EU, it would involve 'rules of origin' checks at all UK borders to determine where the goods were produced. And the whole point of the backstop is to prevent border infrastructure and customs checks between the UK (including NI) and the EU. What you're saying just doesn't make any sense.

JPRouve said:
For the third point that's not what he says or said. On the part that you quoted he says that the EU could make that type of notification but also points to the fact that it would go against the agreement and that the joint committee would be in an impossible position from a political standpoint, legally it would be straightforward. The important part though is in the previous paragraph and I agree with him, the joint committee is a pain for everyone involved, a clause allowing mutual termination would be a lot better because like he says multiple times, every resolution would have to be political anyway.

What the general attorney proposes is to put politicians in front of their responsibilities from the beginning by simply putting a mutual termination clause, instead of using a joint committee.
Click to expand...
I'll just paste the relevant piece of the legal advice rather than argue about what he said.

CevhCV3.png


If he didn't think it was a risk, albeit a small one, he wouldn't have included it in his legal advice.
 
@MikeUpNorth Why do you take the Review chapiter out of context? If you read the entire chapiter his point is that the joint committee isn't really workable for any side, the part that you are quoting is an example of notification that couldn't be politically fixed by the joint committee. Which he clearly states in the very next paragraph.

In any event, whichever party attempted to submit a notification, it is extremely difficult to see how a five member arbitral panel made up of lawyers who were independent of the parties would be prepared to make a judgment as political as whether the Protocol is no longer necessary, in the absence of the consent of the parties, much less make a finding that it would be appropriate that only certain parts of the Protocol were no longer necessary.
Click to expand...

To make it clear and simple for everyone, this is the conclusion of this chapter:
In conclusion, the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
@MikeUpNorth Why do you take the Review chapiter out of context? If you read the entire chapiter his point is that the joint committee isn't really workable for any side, the part that you are quoting is an example of notification that couldn't be politically fixed by the joint committee. Which he clearly states in the very next paragraph.
Click to expand...
I quoted that part because it was relevant to my point. I stand by it as a risk of being in the backstop - "extremely difficult to see" does not mean impossible. It's a (small) legal risk the backstop would pose to the UK.

If the WA text was opened up for further amendments, it would be trivially easy for the EU to insert a clause explicitly ruling out such a scenario, would it not? It would at least show good faith and take one little element of fear off the table for the DUP.
 
Buster15 said:
Quite true.
But she didn't really have a choice because the deal that she had signed up to will not be accepted by Parliament and she is well aware of that.

The reality is that the vote last night was to:
Go back to the EU to try to reopen the WA.
Get the backstop changed in favour of a different solution to the Irish border. The solution to this does not exist and if it did, would have been identified during the last 2 years of discussion.

So. Have we made any progress?
Click to expand...

There's been no progress. The vote last night is essentially the Tory party voting for all the benefits of May's deal without the main bit they don't like ie the Backstop.
The EU have already said there will be no negotiations over this. If by some miracle they do, the Backstop will likely be replaced with other conditions they find equally distasteful.
The audacity of May: for weeks she said her negotiated deal was the only one to be had. Except now it isn't when it suits her.
The Tories have united around a complete fantasy, the UK Government is a complete shambles.
 
cyberman said:
Well Spain wants to go in hard over Gibraltar alongside France over fishing rights if negotiations are reopened.
She could end up with even less if the EU does take her on.
Is that progress?
Click to expand...

It is a real mess. That is for sure.
However, we are where we are and I am hopeful (I was previously optimistic) that some sort of political fudge can be achieved through further talks that can mean that Parliament will approve it and we can all get on with our lives.
 
Reiver said:
There's been no progress. The vote last night is essentially the Tory party voting for all the benefits of May's deal without the main bit they don't like ie the Backstop.
The EU have already said there will be no negotiations over this. If by some miracle they do, the Backstop will likely be replaced with other conditions they find equally distasteful.
The audacity of May: for weeks she said her negotiated deal was the only one to be had. Except now it isn't when it suits her.
The Tories have united around a complete fantasy, the UK Government is a complete shambles.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right about that.
The pity is that we have no realistic opposition to actually challenge this awful government and I say that as a traditional Labour supporter.

At least I have Manchester United to support given Bristol Rovers are in the risk of relegation.
 
Reiver said:
There's been no progress. The vote last night is essentially the Tory party voting for all the benefits of May's deal without the main bit they don't like ie the Backstop.
The EU have already said there will be no negotiations over this. If by some miracle they do, the Backstop will likely be replaced with other conditions they find equally distasteful.
The audacity of May: for weeks she said her negotiated deal was the only one to be had. Except now it isn't when it suits her.
The Tories have united around a complete fantasy, the UK Government is a complete shambles.
Click to expand...
The only thinkable route to reopen negotiations is if it's another Government negotiating for the UK. There's no point to renegotiate with someone who couldn't deliver on the very last thing they negotiated.
 
Uh oh, May's top secret strategy has been sussed!:
Libération said:
“From now till mid-February, aided by the Eurosceptic press, she can deploy the classic British rhetoric: those intransigent, arrogant Europeans are refusing to give us what we want.

“Then she can say, ‘I tried, but this is the only deal on the table.’ She is counting on fear of a no deal to win MPs round. It’s a very big gamble, and it could backfire, lamentably.”
Click to expand...
'May can no longer be trusted': European press condemns PM
Papers say Theresa May is aiming to provoke conflict with EU after ‘utterly absurd’ Commons scenes:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-longer-be-trusted-european-press-condemns-pm
 
I wonder if May ever tried to win any concessions from the DUP when she bent over? If they're going to throw their weight around over the issue we should see if we can make them adopt abortion rights
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I quoted that part because it was relevant to my point. I stand by it as a risk of being in the backstop - "extremely difficult to see" does not mean impossible. It's a (small) legal risk the backstop would pose to the UK.

If the WA text was opened up for further amendments, it would be trivially easy for the EU to insert a clause explicitly ruling out such a scenario, would it not?
Click to expand...

That scenario has no legs because of the objectives set by the protocol, but if you want to add a clause to an already stated point, I don't really see an issue. You noticed that he doesn't propose to do so.

Objectives and relationship to subsequent agreement
1. This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement regarding the
constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, which provides that any
change in that status can only be made with the consent of a majority of its people.
2. This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United
Kingdom.
Click to expand...

These two points are why he finishes the paragraph the way he did. The notification would go against the objectives of the subsequent agreement.
 
@JPRouve Do you have any further thoughts on the problem the backstop poses the UK regarding non-participation in FTAs agreed by the EU?

For context around the Turkey-EU customs union comparison:

In addition, when the EU negotiates a trade deal with third countries, the deal would open up British markets to these countries; but it would not open up their markets to Britain, since Britain would not be a member of the EU. The Turks were worried that, should the US-EU negotiations over the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership prove successful, American goods would be able to enter Turkey tariff-free, but Turkish goods would still face US tariff barriers in the US.

A customs-union Britain would therefore have to conclude separate trade agreements with third countries so as to secure the benefits of the EU deal. But there would be little incentive for third countries to conclude such agreements, since their goods would already be able freely to enter Britain. We would be, as Barack Obama said in another context, at the back of the queue.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/27/customs-union-brexit-european-union-eu-turkey
Click to expand...

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), presently being negotiated between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), has raised economic concerns for Turkey. This EU candidate country enjoys preferential access to the European market due to the Customs Union (CU) agreed in 1995. However, under the existing terms, countries that sign a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU have automatic access to the Turkish market, without opening their own markets for Turkish goods. According to the recently published World Bank evaluation of the CU, if the EU and the US remove all tariffs on bilateral trade, but with Turkey continuing to face restrictions in the US market and maintaining tariffs on US imports, the country will face a welfare loss of $130 million (World Bank, 2014).

http://www.europeanpublicaffairs.eu...ht-of-ttip-and-beyond-the-economic-relations/
Click to expand...

It makes an indefinite backstop as currently constituted an intolerable position for the UK, in my opinion.
 
Smores said:
I wonder if May ever tried to win any concessions from the DUP when she bent over? If they're going to throw their weight around over the issue we should see if we can make them adopt abortion rights
Click to expand...

No Surrender!
I have to say, it's kind of entertaining seeing the wider British public being introduced to the DUP.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
@JPRouve Do you have any further thoughts on the problem the backstop poses the UK regarding non-participation in FTAs agreed by the EU?

For context around the Turkey-EU customs union comparison:





It makes an indefinite backstop as currently constituted an intolerable position for the UK, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I can't compare because I haven't looked at the EU-Turkish custom agreement. In this agreement the UK have the right to unilaterally take any measure that protects its market. You already said that it would defy logic and I should have been totally clear, you can and will have to put borders if you want to protect yourself. And that's why the EUCU trade in block, that's why Norway and Switzerland have borders and border checks.

You have to make a choice, you either trade in block and have the same legal framework or you will need a border, otherwise we are vulnerable to exploitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.