Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
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.
 
JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...
What you seem to be saying then, is that the backstop does not actually fulfil its intention of preventing the need for a hard border (at least in a certain set of conceivable circumstances regarding trade)?

I believe that the UK would be in violation of the provisions of the WA if it ended up in the backstop and subsequently implemented border checks. It surely would have a legal obligation to abide by the terms of the customs union? That's the whole point.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
What you seem to be saying then, is that the backstop does not actually fulfil its intention of preventing the need for a hard border?
Click to expand...

It does fulfills it, if the UK-EU co-sign every new EU or UK FTA and ratify every laws that impacts the single market and the custom union but you probably realize what that actually means. Based on the UK red lines, there is no way out, that's the hard truth. If the UK changes its red lines, one way or the other, more options become available but NI will always have to be with ROI unless they both tell us otherwise.
 
Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, is speaking now on behalf of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group.
He says the chances of a no-deal Brexit have gone up. But that is not because of the vote in the Commons. It is because of what has happened in Brussels.
He says the EU made Theresa May sign up to the backstop. She had to get on a plane at 4 in the morning to go to Brussels to agree to it [in December 2017]. He says she signed up to terms that no country had signed up to except when defeated in war.
He says people in the UK never used to know anyone in the EU. But now Brexit has turned “you”, he says, into household names. And people have seen how the EU behaves.
He says people in the UK are getting so fed up that they would prefer to see a no-deal Brexit.
But that is a problem for the EU, he says. What will happen to the 100m bottle of prosecco bought by the British? And what will happen to the 750,000 German cars.

Think it's getting all too much for Farage.
 
You can tell they just want Farage to feck off, brexit will be worth it for them just to get rid of the oaf, unfortunately we're stuck with him here
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, is speaking now on behalf of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group.
He says the chances of a no-deal Brexit have gone up. But that is not because of the vote in the Commons. It is because of what has happened in Brussels.
He says the EU made Theresa May sign up to the backstop. She had to get on a plane at 4 in the morning to go to Brussels to agree to it [in December 2017]. He says she signed up to terms that no country had signed up to except when defeated in war.
He says people in the UK never used to know anyone in the EU. But now Brexit has turned “you”, he says, into household names. And people have seen how the EU behaves.
He says people in the UK are getting so fed up that they would prefer to see a no-deal Brexit.
But that is a problem for the EU, he says. What will happen to the 100m bottle of prosecco bought by the British? And what will happen to the 750,000 German cars.

Think it's getting all too much for Farage.
Click to expand...

First of all, the British will continue to buy German cars, an extra £30 or £40 a month won't phase 95% of purchasers. In any case, selling those cars to 50 or more other markets won't be a problem for them, it will only be a minor blip. People will want BMWs Mercs VWs etc just as much as they always have.

And once we are out of Europe with no deal & the country going to the dogs, we'll be drinking more than ever.
 
Sassy Colin said:
First of all, the British will continue to buy German cars, an extra £30 or £40 a month won't phase 95% of purchasers. In any case, selling those cars to 50 or more other markets won't be a problem for them, it will only be a minor blip. People will want BMWs Mercs VWs etc just as much as they always have.

And once we are out of Europe with no deal & the country going to the dogs, we'll be drinking more than ever.
Click to expand...

I've never owned a German made car and I've never drunk a glass of Prosecco, how did they manage.:wenger:

Farage is still appealing to the numpties who believed him the first time around and probably still do.
 
Sassy Colin said:
First of all, the British will continue to buy German cars, an extra £30 or £40 a month won't phase 95% of purchasers. In any case, selling those cars to 50 or more other markets won't be a problem for them, it will only be a minor blip. People will want BMWs Mercs VWs etc just as much as they always have.

And once we are out of Europe with no deal & the country going to the dogs, we'll be drinking more than ever.
Click to expand...
British cars for British people! Like the Mini... no...or ... um.... ah
 
Farage is talking out of his backside as usual but I think a sizeable portion of the population will buy his line that the UK is being bullied by Brussels. i just wish an interviewer would ask Nige or one of the other fantasists like Fox how they expect to get great deals from bigger countries in the rest of the world who are a lot less well disposed to the UK than the EU 27.
 
JPRouve said:
It does fulfills it, if the UK-EU co-sign every new EU or UK FTA and ratify every laws that impacts the single market and the custom union but you probably realize what that actually means. Based on the UK red lines, there is no way out, that's the hard truth. If the UK changes its red lines, one way or the other, more options become available but NI will always have to be with ROI unless they both tell us otherwise.
Click to expand...
JPRouve said:
What is particularly intolerable?
Click to expand...
I think you've finally answered your own question.

I also want to point out that the UK might not get the chance to automatically participate in EU FTAs, even if it wanted to. Things just get exponentially more complicated when you add a third party into this whole mess.
 
Cheesy said:
Somewhat positive to hear, albeit not sure what overall effect it'll have considering both parties have largely employed fantastical approaches to the whole process so far.
Click to expand...
May to give Corbyn his GE in exchange for him to back her deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.