Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus · 12-03-2019 06:57AM

Enzokk wrote: »

. . . So basically if the UK feels that during the negotiations there is no way out they can just walk away. But they will still have their obligations to the GFA to think about and they will not have a free trade agreement with the EU at that stage. So the chances of this happening without blowing the economy up at that stage, none.

Not quite, as I read things.

The UK's unilateral declaration says that, if it's not possible for the UK and the EU to reach agreement due to a breach of Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement by the EU, then their view is that the UK can walk (while still upholding "its obligations under the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions and under all circumstances and to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland").

Art 5 is the one that says both parties must act in good faith.

All of this is intended to address the UK's (paranoid) concern that the EU will "trap" them in the backstop permanently by simply refusing to agree to any proposals the UK may advance for a future relationship agreement or other agreement to supersede the backstop. If the UK thinks that's what's happening, they can refer the matter to the arbitration procedure which the WA provides for, and if the arbitrators agree that "yes, the EU is acting in bad faith", then the UK holds itself free to walk. But they don't claim to be able to walk simply because no agreement can been reached; only if no agreement can be reached because of bad faith on the part of the EU.

iguana · 12-03-2019 08:24AM

Many/most of the British papers are treating this as a new positive deal. The Express seems particularly impressed:rolleyes:.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/the_papers

VinLieger · 12-03-2019 08:43AM

iguana wrote: »

Many/most of the British papers are treating this as a new positive deal. The Express seems particularly impressed:rolleyes:.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/the_papers

Both the telegraph, mail and express seem to be supporting it, is this finally their "coming to the mountain" moment weve all been expecting had to happen?

c.p.w.g.w · 12-03-2019 08:44AM

So what has actually changed with regards the WA?

Akrasia · 12-03-2019 08:50AM

I think the shift in rhetoric from the threat of 'no deal' to 'no brexit' means that Mays strategy of scaring remainers to vote for her deal out of fear of a crash out has failed.

There is still enough of a risk of a crash out to allow the hardliners enough hope that they can gamble on rejecting Mays deal, but the cards have firmly landed on the soft brexit/remain side of the table.

Mays deal will be voted down. No deal will be voted down and the EU will refuse to agree to anything other than a lengthy extension on the condition that there is a 2nd referendum

Peregrinus · 12-03-2019 08:51AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So what has actually changed with regards the WA?

Practically nothing. But don't say that out loud.

Akrasia · 12-03-2019 08:56AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So what has actually changed with regards the WA?

Very very very little (actually nothing)

The UK have been told that if the negotiations on the NI border completely break down and every other strategy to avoid a hard border fails, they can leave the backstop as long as they continue to respect the good friday agreement.

Its a distinction without a difference, there isnt a time limited backstop or a unilateral exit mechanism ( both sides need to agree that negotiations have completely broken down)

Peregrinus · 12-03-2019 09:02AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Very very very little (actually nothing)

The UK have been told that if the negotiations on the NI border completely break down and every other strategy to avoid a hard border fails, they can leave the backstop as long as they continue to respect the good friday agreement.

Its a distinction without a difference, there isnt a time limited backstop or a unilateral exit mechanism ( both sides need to agree that negotiations have completely broken down)

I wouldn't even go that far. Firstly, the UK hasn't been told anything; what's new here is a unilateral declaration by the UK as to what they think they can do. The EU isn't objecting to that declaration, but it's not assenting to it either.

Secondly, in the declaration the UK doesn't say that it thinks it has the right to leave the backstop "if the negotiations on the NI border completely break down and every other strategy to avoid a hard border fails"; it says it thinks it has that right if the negotiations break down for want of good faith on the EU's part. And the withdrawal agreement allows the UK to refer that question to independent arbitration, which means the UK doesn't get to just deem the EU to have acted in bad faith; it has to persuade the arbitrators that, yes, the EU is acting in bad faith and this is why border negotiations have failed.

Working class heroes · 12-03-2019 09:09AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So what has actually changed with regards the WA?

Ssssssssssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Zubeneschamali · 12-03-2019 09:17AM

Don't forget that even if Mays deal is passed, they will need a technical extension until the new EU parliament term to pass all the needed laws and instruments.

I think we will see:

Mays deal passes, short extension

No to Deal and to No Deal, longer extension for 2nd ref, UK in euro elections

No deal, no extension

lawred2 · 12-03-2019 09:20AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't even go that far. Firstly, the UK hasn't been told anything; what's new here is a unilateral declaration by the UK as to what they think they can do. The EU isn't objecting to that declaration, but it's not assenting to it either.

Secondly, in the declaration the UK doesn't say that it thinks it has the right to leave the backstop "if the negotiations on the NI border completely break down and every other strategy to avoid a hard border fails"; it says it thinks it has that right if the negotiations break down for want of good faith on the EU's part. And the withdrawal agreement allows the UK to refer that question to independent arbitration, which means the UK doesn't get to just deem the EU to have acted in bad faith; it has to persuade the arbitrators that, yes, the EU is acting in bad faith and this is why border negotiations have failed.

And even if they do persuade the arbiters, it apparently doesn't end there. The EU will be given time to remedy where they have been seen to be acting in bad faith.

And even if that fails and the UK can unilaterally disavow the obligations of the backstop they must do so while still upholding their responsibilities under the GFA.

Still fairly tied in you'd have to say.

First Up · 12-03-2019 09:32AM

Looks a smart piece of work. It gives the HOC enough rope, either to climb back down onto planet Earth - or to hang themselves.

We'll see.

seamus · 12-03-2019 09:33AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Both the telegraph, mail and express seem to be supporting it, is this finally their "coming to the mountain" moment weve all been expecting had to happen?

Certainly the raving pro-Brexit press seem to be more positive about this non-deal than the rest. An obvious realisation that the EU are not wavering and they need to paint this in a good light to make it palatable to their slack-jawed readership.

The free press are more even-keeled, reporting that May "claims" to have secured legal changes.

Still, I've given up trying to predict outcomes in this mess. Currency markets are a little positive about it, but certainly not confident.

This is the same deal on which May suffered the largest defeat in the HoC in nearly a century. Nothing has materially been altered. They've now written a few hundred thousand words and gotten into nit-picking over the words of an insurance policy that kicks in after a safety mechanism fails. All of the effort expended over the last two months arguing over a backstop, is over something that will never come into force anyway.

So really the only question is whether there are enough MPs who realise that time is up and the fun and games are over.

Or whether they really are as clueless about the reality as they have thus far portrayed themselves.

If this is voted down tonight, it's over.

Seth Brundle · 12-03-2019 09:38AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So what has actually changed with regards the WA?

TM: We want assurances
EU: See this bit in the WA about adjudication? You can have that.
TM: We want more - we don't want to be trapped by the backstop. It cannot be permanent.
EU: As we've said before, you won't be once alternative arrangements are agreed by UK & EU.
TM: OK I win

L1011 · 12-03-2019 09:40AM

iguana wrote: »

Many/most of the British papers are treating this as a new positive deal. The Express seems particularly impressed:rolleyes:.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/the_papers

Express may have realised this is the last roll of the dice - it's this or withdrawal of A50. Also it has been moderated slightly from above since being bought by the Mirror

Seth Brundle · 12-03-2019 09:46AM

Uh oh

https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1105385297288851456

robinph · 12-03-2019 09:49AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Mays deal will be voted down. No deal will be voted down and the EU will refuse to agree to anything other than a lengthy extension on the condition that there is a 2nd referendum

That is what is needed now to force a decision one way or another, but it still needs the UK to realise that for themselves as if anyone from the EU mentions it there are still too many people over here who would then get their knickers in a twist about being bossed around by the evil empire.

gmisk · 12-03-2019 09:49AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Uh oh

https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1105385297288851456

:rolleyes:

The DUP what a surprise lol

prawnsambo · 12-03-2019 09:50AM

Laois_Man wrote: »

They already did - and they lost
No reason to think it would be any different now

It would be different if Tory MPs who want rid of her, join with Labour in a motion of no-confidence. There being no internal way of getting rid of her before the next election.

20silkcut · 12-03-2019 09:50AM

lawred2 wrote: »

And even if that fails and the UK can unilaterally disavow the obligations of the backstop they must do so while still upholding their responsibilities under the GFA.

Still fairly tied in you'd have to say.

This would be no problem for a future government not depending on the support of the DUP.
To me this really confirms that the EU is happy enough to let the UK leave and the whole notion of the UK being trapped by the EU holds no water.

Similar to the situation in the mid 80’s when the IRA realized and had it spelled out that the British didn’t really want to be in Northern Ireland and would go when the majority wanted them gone effectively the beginning of the end of the IRA campaign.

Maybe now similarly the UK realise that the EU don’t want them and are not trapping them, but it is the DUP that are trapping them. Once they (DUP) are gone they can do what they like.

Seth Brundle · 12-03-2019 09:53AM

gmisk wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The DUP what a surprise lol

If the DUP object then so too will the ERG. All the cards will presumably fall then.

On the one hand, I want them to crash out with an almighty bang. That hopefully will wake them up to how bad the UK really is.
On the other hand, it will impact us so I don't really want it to happen.

Beechwoodspark · 12-03-2019 09:54AM

So-extension on the EUs terms it is

FrancieBrady · 12-03-2019 09:57AM

Jeffery Donaldson is either waiting for somebody to give him rope to angrily dismiss this or to accept it. Very edgy on RTE there.
DUP between a rock and a very hard place this AM.

Zubeneschamali · 12-03-2019 10:03AM

seamus wrote: »

If this is voted down tonight, it's over.

I think as Juncker said, it is this deal or no Brexit at all.

jaykay74 · 12-03-2019 10:08AM

This might be a handy guide for the coming days in terms of options and alternatives based on certain vote outcomes in the HoCs. Better not to embed I think as the image is fairly large but think it needs to be due to the number of alternatives.

Sorry if already posted!

https://jonworth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BrexitPlanB-V15.png

Enzokk · 12-03-2019 10:09AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite, as I read things.

The UK's unilateral declaration says that, if it's not possible for the UK and the EU to reach agreement due to a breach of Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement by the EU, then their view is that the UK can walk (while still upholding "its obligations under the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions and under all circumstances and to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland").

Art 5 is the one that says both parties must act in good faith.

All of this is intended to address the UK's (paranoid) concern that the EU will "trap" them in the backstop permanently by simply refusing to agree to any proposals the UK may advance for a future relationship agreement or other agreement to supersede the backstop. If the UK thinks that's what's happening, they can refer the matter to the arbitration procedure which the WA provides for, and if the arbitrators agree that "yes, the EU is acting in bad faith", then the UK holds itself free to walk. But they don't claim to be able to walk simply because no agreement can been reached; only if no agreement can be reached because of bad faith on the part of the EU.

You are right, I was commenting on the tweet that states the UK could leave if they feel that the EU is not negotiating in good faith and is trying to keep them in forever. You list the steps better than I could that has been added and is only clarifying what was in the WA.

It seems that the climbdown has started. Let's remember that David Davis was advocating that the UK do nothing until the last minute and the EU would concede everything the UK wanted. Seems he has blinked.

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1105383021107134464

Let's just think about it at the moment, the DUP and ERG has the fate of where the UK goes in their hands. One of the few parties that opposed the Good Friday Agreement has it in their power to decide whether to keep to the same agreement.

https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/1105389656898789376

https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1105390496925564928

Cosmo Kramer · 12-03-2019 10:09AM

DUP in a very tight spot here. If they vote for the deal, they must know that they'll be screwed over as soon as they are out of power. Once their votes don't matter it will be a border in the Irish Sea.

If they vote against they risk no deal brexit or no Brexit. Although they'll never admit it I suspect no Brexit looks like quite an appealing option to them now, but they would never be able to publicly support it ahead of any future vote.

They've backed themselves right into a corner on Brexit.

volchitsa · 12-03-2019 10:17AM

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems that the climbdown has started. Let's remember that David Davis was advocating that the UK do nothing until the last minute and the EU would concede everything the UK wanted. Seems he has blinked.

I can't understand this. How could they have thought the EU was going to collapse at the last minute, and if they genuinely did think that, why are they changing now? It's not actually the last minute. Yet.

But basically, does anyone else think they can never have seriously imagined that would happen in the first place? Although that leaves me entirely unable to explain WTF they thought they were achieving by pretending to think it.

My reading of it, going by EU policy and negotiating capacities with other countries, was that there was never going to be an EU climbdown. Why would the ERG and the DUP have imagined otherwise?

Kiith · 12-03-2019 10:17AM

Why would the EU trust Britain to negotiate in good faith when they decide to pull out and claim bad faith by the EU? They've shown nothing but contempt for any agreement so far. From what i read, this allows them to pull out of the backstop, as long as they comply with the GFA. They've already shown that the GFA will take a backseat to their demands, so why would this change? Is this not giving Britain an out?

Hopefully i'm missing something.

Fionn1952 · 12-03-2019 10:19AM

Funny enough, even though there was a Remain majority in NI, there was a very large Leave minority. No Brexit at all could potentially leave that hefty portion of the electorate open to being tempted to vote DUP.

I don't reckon they're clever enough to have intentionally engineered that, but they're certainly sly enough to take advantage should the opportunity present itself to be the party the Leave vote of NI rallies behind.

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments