kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
joe40 wrote: » Basically can the March deadline be extended, or is this the only option before a no deal exit in march
Mc Love wrote: » JRM saying on LBC this morning, that its a terrible deal. Same as Ian Duncan Smith saying its not what they signed up to.
joe40 wrote: » It appears that labour seem to be rejecting this deal, (as speculated on) in order to get a closer customs union arrangement, or a new vote for some labour members but not Corbyn. Their position on this is not clear. Is there time for a new general election for labour to win and then negotiate their own deal, or new vote or whatever they decide. Basically can the March deadline be extended, or is this the only option before a no deal exit in march
judeboy101 wrote: » "You're a little ray of sunshine, aren't you?" Exactly what the EU would write into WA in order to dedramatise it. But wait, here comes the UK "well actually, there are no 'rays of sunshine' as the sun emits visible light as photons which have a dual particle/wave nature" so we have a loop hole.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Any comments coming from Barnier yet?
Rhineshark wrote: » As a note of caution even so, it is entirely possible that May will try get this through as "it's only so we can get to the negotiations later on", "We don't have to actually uphold any of this" and/or "This cannot be binding on a future Parliament". The one thing that the Tories can do is unilaterally renage on whatever they sign up to, by incompetence or maliciousness to try break it later, not least since they don't have the imagination to consider European reaction. Normally this would not be a consideration in a multilateral agreement but... But this would be a potential peril of any agreement with the UK gov.
Enzokk wrote: » Here we have Bloomberg on deal.Theresa May's Brexit Deal: What We Know So Far According to the piece if after the transition the UK stays in the deal then they will contribute £10b per year to be part of the customs union and single market. At least according to this article it seems the only compromise from the EU was to allow a all UK customs union but the UK has agreed to the NI backstop. The compromise of an all UK customs union is actually a positive for the EU as well.
Tell me how wrote: » Total hypothetical question here. If for some bizarre reason, the Irish population had to vote on whether this deal was acceptable to proceed, would you vote for it or against? (Still with the best interest of Ireland at heart). Would you think this is enough to limit damage and see how we get on so let's do it? Or would you chance that the threat of a No Deal will ultimately be enough to force a 2nd referendum with the string possibility the UK would vote to remain at that point.
The Money Toward the end of the transitional period in 2020, the U.K. will be able to choose between extending these existing status quo trade terms -- at a price of continuing its annual payments of about 10 billion pounds ($13 billion) to the EU -- or dropping out of the single market and customs union and into the Irish border backstop. That would mean no need for such payments, but it would also mean committing to keeping inside the EU’s customs regime indefinitely. Future Partnership The 600-page divorce deal also contains a far shorter blueprint for the future relationship between the U.K. and the EU. This draft makes clear that the backstop arrangement for Northern Ireland will set the baseline for friction-free trade across the Irish border for the long term. Any future trade deal must provide as a minimum the same open border on the island of Ireland. The draft text holds out the prospect -- which Brexit backers crave -- of a slimmed down, Canada-style free trade agreement. But it will only be for mainland Britain. If the government chooses such a deal, Northern Ireland will have to remain inside the backstop customs regime of the EU while the rest of the country goes its separate way. Such an outcome will be unacceptable to Tories who value the union of the United Kingdom, and those DUP politicians who prop up May’s minority government
Peregrinus wrote: » Far from caring about a UK-wide backstop, we love it. The more closely integrated GB is with the EU, the less damage to IRL/GB trade. If keeping the border open was our first priority, our second would definitely be minimising barriers to trade between Irl and GB. If we get both of these . . . well, maybe it is possible to have your cake and eat it, after all!
LeinsterDub wrote: » Why do we care if the backstop is UK wide as long as it applies to NI? Our main goal was to avoid a hard border. This looks to have been achieved. Remember it looked likely just this week that attempting to ensure no hard border was going to result in a hard border
judeboy101 wrote: » But we have been constantly fed a line by leo and EU that 1. No cherry picking of 4 pillars of sm 2. Ni only 3. Ni specific backstop to backstop 4. Decision to leave backstop will multilateral (now an independent non eu panel) will decide. This is all coming from tony Connelly leaks. It would take 10 seconds to flick to page on NI in a 500 page document same for exit clause page. No one walked, doubt anyone will. No riots by unionists because they know the Irish have been sold another pup, shades of Collins in Whitehall springs to mind.
judeboy101 wrote: » Nobody has walked overnight. That's not a good sign as it means the brexiteers on cabinet see something that allows them to weasel out of deal in 21 months.
Peregrinus wrote: » Always with the cheerfulness, Judeboy! I very much doubt this means what you think it means. This is a 500-page document of (by all reports, deliberately) dense, dense text. And the brexiters in the cabinet include those who have only just learned that Great Britain is an island and those who signed the (much shorter, much clearer) Joint Report last December without having understood it. The notion that in the hours since this document was delivered to Downing Street they have mastered its detail and are justifiably confident that it guarantees the outcome they want is not a very plausible one. A much more likely explanation for why they haven't resigned overnight is that they haven't yet digested it and do not know if it meets whatever tests they are minded to set for it. The likelihood, I suggest (without having read the text, of course) is that it will not meet their tests, since their tests are basically unreasonable, from the EU's point of view. There's no reason to expect the EU to meet them. If I am right in this, that will give the cabinet brexiteers a choice: 1. Walk. 2. Swallow hard and stay put, justifying this either by choosing to accept the assurances of others that the text gives them what they want (as happened last December) or by persuading themselves that no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic, while Brexit on this deal is at least Brexit, and provides a base from which to work for further taking-back-of-control. (The Michael Collins gambit, as it were. And we know how that worked out for Big Mick, don't we?) There are some straws in the wind which suggest that some of them at least are considering option #2. About a week ago Liam Fox stopped attaching free trade deal hashtags to all his tweets, suggesting he's expecting to accept a WA that leaves the UK unable to make trade deals. Raab's humiliating claim to have just discovered the economic significance of the Dover-Calais link looks pretty clearly like an attempt to clear the way for a volte-face. None of this means that no Brexiteer will walk from cabinet. But if they didn't do so in the past months, they are clearly not keen to, so if they can persuade themselves that remaining in cabinet is consistent with Brexity honour, they will probably stay in cabinet. And the (reportedly) complex and cryptic text of the draft agreement probably makes it easier to persuade themselves of that.
Bambi wrote: » I'm basing it on the wording RTE used, which is probably straight from the Government Press Office.
Bambi wrote: » Tomorrow will tell. The backstop detail is crucial. Arbitration, mutual review etc. can be utterly meaningless by design. I suspect the EU blinked massively or watered down the backstop in return for something that they really wanted.
[Deleted User] wrote: » How would what seems to have been written do against Labour's six tests?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
