Brexit discussion thread III

kowtow

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

But that only refers to NI. It doesn't say the rest of the uk will remain in cu or sm.

The EU are adamant that remaining in cu means free movement of people. Something I can't see Tories agreeing to.

I think it's the sm which = free movement of people, cu means no outside trade deals.

It is worth noting that a big chunk of the "settlement" - half? - represents money the UK would have paid anyway to the EU during the proposed transition period.

First Up

Tigerandahalf wrote:

The EU are adamant that remaining in cu means free movement of people. Something I can't see Tories agreeing to.

Only the Single Market requires free movement. Turkey is in the CU.

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't know why some people are phrasing this as a failure for either the UK or Ireland.

Let's think about the results of Phase 1:

• Estimated settlement is between £35 and £39bn according to the Guardian - falls into the reasonable limit I personally held to of £36bn net. This will only be paid if a wider agreement is settled.
• British courts will settle British laws. British courts will have a temporary period where they can refer cases to the ECJ for 8 years. This isn't binding on the UK. (This is a big win for the UK)
• Both sides have agreed that there is a need to collaborate on nuclear and police and security issues.
• Both sides have committed to keep the Irish border open.

I don't see anything here as a "climbdown". There will be hard battles to fight in phase 2, keeping the UK out of the single market and the customs union is the big one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Indeed, the bill does seem to be on the lower end of the estimates, but we don't know the breakdown. Does it include the net payments for the transition period?

More importantly, the UK appears to have agreed to a pseudo CU and SM membership (although for political reasons it will be called something else). This will almost certainly attract an annual payment, like Norway.

Solo, in case you missed it, the climbdown was the continued promise of regulatory alignment as a worst case scenario. While it won't prevent deals with third countries, it will severely curtail their scope.

Blowfish

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Reads like the UK completely backing away from a hard brexit under any circumstances?

I mean you cant pick and mix the common market or customs union, the only way you can achieve that is with a trade deal.

But the above is saying if they completely balls up a trade deal they'll fall back to being in full alignment with the CM and CU as far as good friday agreement. But as I already said you cant pick and mix it so you have to take the whole thing. The point of a trade deal is to be able to pick and mix it. No trade deal no halfway CM and CU and with no unfettered access to the North for the rest of the UK the same deal has to reach across.

So it sounds like the UK agreeing that if they cant get a trade deal they'll stay in the CM and CU. No hard brexit.

The catch with that is that the whole thing agreed in the talks still needs to be approved by the UK Parlaiment. I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine that would effectively annul the above paragraphs, including what would happen if there's 'no deal'. This would mean that a hard border is still possible.

FrancieBrady

Blowfish wrote: »

The catch with that is that the whole thing agreed in the talks still needs to be approved by the UK Parlaiment and that includes the part about what happens if there's no deal. I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine that would effectively annul the above paragraphs, including what would happen if there's 'no deal'. This would mean that a hard border is still possible.

That was always the case.
The GFA only works when the parties to it operate in good faith.

We can only hope that the UK operate in good faith to any agreement they entered. That goes for the EU too.

Professor Moriarty

Barnier reminding anyone who will listen that if Britain maintains its current red lines, then the only FTA they can have is the one that Canada negotiated. This would be a disaster for Britain's financial sector. It also means that future negotiations will be much more destabilising for the Tories (and British business planning) than the recent border agreement has been.

jimmycrackcorm

Tigerandahalf wrote:

Let us say there is a hard brexit - what is in place for a hard border not to happen?

I've come to the conclusion that what May has done is to push Mondays original deal out until after the next UK general election.


Basically anticipating that the DUP won't get a stranglehold in government again then. The UK government can then decide to put the border in the Irish sea by pointing out the commitment to the GFA and diverging on UK standards based on it being an internal matter.

Professor Moriarty

Vronsky wrote: »

Indeed, the bill does seem to be on the lower end of the estimates, but we don't know the breakdown. Does it include the net payments for the transition period?

More importantly, the UK appears to have agreed to a pseudo CU and SM membership (although for political reasons it will be called something else). This will almost certainly attract an annual payment, like Norway.

Solo, in case you missed it, the climbdown was the continued promise of regulatory alignment as a worst case scenario. While it won't prevent deals with third countries, it will severely curtail their scope.

The BBC's Nick Robinson made this clever and pithy observation in a tweet:

Brexit Bill will come to £35-£39 billion says government. Less, Brexiteers will say, than the £40-£50 billon of conventional wisdom. Much more, Remainers will point out, than any voter was ever told.

Blowfish

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That was always the case.
The GFA only works when the parties to it operate in good faith.

We can only hope that the UK operate in good faith to any agreement they entered. That goes for the EU too.

True, a huge amount of people seem to be assuming that the worst case scenario is the default position of CU & SM in all but name. It's not, especially as May still has to somehow sort out the hardcore Brexiteers in her party as they can still torpedo the whole thing.

BlitzKrieg

As for the whole courts side of things in relation to Citizen rights.

The agreement outlines that the rights of UK in europe and EU citizens in the UK that the decisions of the CJEU are final

This Part of the Agreement establishes rights for citizens following on from those
established in Union law during the UK’s membership of the European Union; the
CJEU is the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of Union law.

Only that it'll be UK courts interpreting these laws

In the context of the
application or interpretation of those rights, UK courts shall therefore have due regard
to relevant decisions of the CJEU after the specified date4

That's permanent

The 8 year limit is only on a mechanism where the Uk courts can refer cases to the CJEU

The Agreement should also
establish a mechanism enabling UK courts or tribunals to decide, having had due
regard to whether relevant case-law exists, to ask the CJEU questions of interpretation
of those rights where they consider that a CJEU ruling on the question is necessary for
the UK court or tribunal to be able to give judgment in a case before it. This
mechanism should be available for UK courts or tribunals for litigation brought within
8 years from the date of application of the citizens' rights Part

But it's still CJEU decisions that are final after those 8 years and it's still EU law protecting EU citizens in the UK, so unless I've missed some creative re-interpretation that sounds like one of May's redlines being firmly squashed.

First Up

The beauty of the agreement (from Ireland's position) is that it has taken Ireland off the table as a negotiating lever in the trade talks. At a stroke, that removed a good chunk of the "cake and eat it" strategy that the dimmer Brexiteers thought was their golden key (along with thinking they could use it to drive a wedge between ROI and the rest of the EU.)

They greviously underestimated both the solidarity of the EU and the skills of the Irish diplomats and negotiators who saw this coming a long time back and have been preparing for exactly this outcome.

The DUP have played (an unintended) helpful role in forcing May's hand but that's just a side show. Now we'll see how the Tories handle reality.

FrancieBrady

Blowfish wrote: »

True, a huge amount of people seem to be assuming that the worst case scenario is the default position of CU & SM in all but name. It's not, especially as May still has to somehow sort out the hardcore Brexiteers in her party as they can still torpedo the whole thing.

And I think they will, sooner or later.

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

In plain language, the fall back/no agreement position is no border north/south and no border east/west.
The UK hope in Phase 2 negotiations to supersede that, with a better arrangement.
And some here are asking, where's the catch???

That is what is being said in plain language all right but there are enough loopholes in the detail of the written legalese to not be so sure.

BlitzKrieg

At his press conference earlier, Michel Barnier was asked by the BBC's Europe reporter Adam Fleming to give one example of where the UK negotiators had successfully changed his mind on an issue.

In response, he said the UK won't have to pay relocation costs for EU bodies such as the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency which are currently based in London but will be moving elsewhere after Brexit.

I swear Barnier is being a subtle troll here. I'd wager Paris and Amsterdam won the contracts for those agencies by offering to either foot the bill for the move or compensate it in some manner that asking the UK to pay on top would have just been a *bonus*

Professor Moriarty

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I swear Barnier is being a subtle troll here. I'd wager Paris and Amsterdam won the contracts for those agencies by offering to either foot the bill for the move or compensate it in some manner that asking the UK to pay on top would have just been a *bonus*

It's like being hammered 42-0 but being allowed to keep a corner flag.

brickster69

Enzokk wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't know why some people are phrasing this as a failure for either the UK or Ireland.

Let's think about the results of Phase 1:

• Estimated settlement is between £35 and £39bn according to the Guardian - falls into the reasonable limit I personally held to of £36bn net. This will only be paid if a wider agreement is settled.
• British courts will settle British laws. British courts will have a temporary period where they can refer cases to the ECJ for 8 years. This isn't binding on the UK. (This is a big win for the UK)
• Both sides have agreed that there is a need to collaborate on nuclear and police and security issues.
• Both sides have committed to keep the Irish border open.

I don't see anything here as a "climbdown". There will be hard battles to fight in phase 2, keeping the UK out of the single market and the customs union is the big one.

Weren't you saying the bill should be around 20B euro? This is almost double that amount and this is without any future payments the UK will need to make if they are to keep on participating in EU institutions while they spend more money to set up their own.

That is 3 x the amount the UK spends annually on Defense per year than France.

flutered

First Up wrote: »

The beauty of the agreement (from Ireland's position) is that it has taken Ireland off the table as a negotiating lever in the trade talks. At a stroke, that removed a good chunk of the "cake and eat it" strategy that the dimmer Brexiteers thought was their golden key (along with thinking they could use it to drive a wedge between ROI and the rest of the EU.)

They greviously underestimated both the solidarity of the EU and the skills of the Irish diplomats and negotiators who saw this coming a long time back and have been preparing for exactly this outcome.

The DUP have played (an unintended) helpful role in forcing May's hand but that's just a side show. Now we'll see how the Tories handle reality.

to add that the uk had only one professional neogeotiator, as the brexiteers had the senion whitehall bods sidelined, up against folk who did neogiations for a living, this was always going to be the outcome, imo

flutered

Water John wrote: »

In plain language, the fall back/no agreement position is no border north/south and no border east/west.
The UK hope in Phase 2 negotiations to supersede that, with a better arrangement.
And some here are asking, where's the catch???

will they be able to do so, if so what will they have to give up in return

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't know why some people are phrasing this as a failure for either the UK or Ireland.

Let's think about the results of Phase 1:

• Estimated settlement is between £35 and £39bn according to the Guardian - falls into the reasonable limit I personally held to of £36bn net. This will only be paid if a wider agreement is settled.
• British courts will settle British laws. British courts will have a temporary period where they can refer cases to the ECJ for 8 years. This isn't binding on the UK. (This is a big win for the UK)
• Both sides have agreed that there is a need to collaborate on nuclear and police and security issues.
• Both sides have committed to keep the Irish border open.

I don't see anything here as a "climbdown". There will be hard battles to fight in phase 2, keeping the UK out of the single market and the customs union is the big one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Last week the Irish government were being "incredibly stupid" or words to that affect, now we have a win win deal for everyone, where all Irish demands are being met, Puh-lease. You can spin it any way you like but today was a bad day for your version brexit.

flutered

Blowfish wrote: »

True, a huge amount of people seem to be assuming that the worst case scenario is the default position of CU & SM in all but name. It's not, especially as May still has to somehow sort out the hardcore Brexiteers in her party as they can still torpedo the whole thing.

according to reports johnston and grove have giving this their imprematur, so no much opposition left if the spokes men have surrundered

kowtow

As pointed out elsewhere, Theresa May may be the most skilled operator in these negotiations after all.

First, she pacified the Right by promising a hard Brexit, and now she has pacified the Left by pretending to be too damned incompetent to deliver one.

listermint

kowtow wrote: »

As pointed out elsewhere, Theresa May may be the most skilled operator in these negotiations after all.

First, she pacified the Right by promising a hard Brexit, and now she has pacified the Left by pretending to be too damned incompetent to deliver one.

I dont know how you read that out of all of this.

I think this was handled outside of TM altogether, it fell into her lap tbh.

BorneTobyWilde

Can someone lay this bag of snakes in a straight line for me. What is this deal, are UK staying in the Custom Union with free trade and travel for Europeans?

farmchoice

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Can someone lay this bag of snakes in a straight line for me. What is this deal, are UK staying in the Custom Union with free trade and travel for Europeans?

no,not at all, well a bit,id say in the long run probably.

Professor Moriarty

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Can someone lay this bag of snakes in a straight line for me. What is this deal, are UK staying in the Custom Union with free trade and travel for Europeans?

To use another metaphor, May is trying to herd cats. And another, the square peg will meet the round hole soon again. This from her spokesman just this morning:

"We are leaving the single market and the customs union in March 2019 - I will write it on a sign if you like."

This means a border. No ifs, buts or maybe.

Consonata

If this deal is predicated on the UK remaining a part of the Single Market and the Customs Union, how will May get it past parliament and her own party.

LeinsterDub

Consonata wrote: »

If this deal is predicated on the UK remaining a part of the Single Market and the Customs Union, how will May get it past parliament and her own party.

No really knows what this fudge means in reality.

We will be seeking clarity on how the UK government intends to deliver full alignment with the rules of the Single Market and Customs Union. And there is no doubt that the provisions relating to Northern Ireland raise major new questions over proposed UK-wide frameworks that are the subject of on going talks between the UK and Scottish governments.

And I am absolutely clear that any special arrangements for Northern Ireland must now be available to other nations of the UK – the Scottish government will not accept any arrangements which risk putting Scotland at an economic disadvantage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/dec/08/brexit-border-eu-theresa-may-juncker-tusk-markets-live

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

This means a border. No ifs, buts or maybe.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

They are quite capable of accepting regulatory equivalence that replicates the EU, while insisting with a straight face they are taking back control (to loud cheers from the back benches).

Leroy42

Consonata wrote: »

If this deal is predicated on the UK remaining a part of the Single Market and the Customs Union, how will May get it past parliament and her own party.

IMO, UK will be pulling out of both. This is just a stalling tactic as they need to move the negotiations on to trade and use these bits as pawns.

My reading of it is that they are hoping that as they get closer to the cut-off individual countries will start to look at the trade impact of any deal and will be more open to movement on the hey principles.

It is a risky tactic, as if there is no split then the UK could be faced with losing on nearly every front. But if they manage it they could end up with they were looking for (whatever that is!)

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

IMO, UK will be pulling out of both. This is just a stalling tactic as they need to move the negotiations on to trade and use these bits as pawns.

They have already sacrificed those pawns by taking the SM and CU off the table.

Leroy42 wrote:

My reading of it is that they are hoping that as they get closer to the cut-off individual countries will start to look at the trade impact of any deal and will be more open to movement on the hey principles.

Well they have been relying on a divide and conquer approach with everything so far and you can see how far it has got them.

Leroy42 wrote:

It is a risky tactic, as if there is no split then the UK could be faced with losing on nearly every front. But if they manage it they could end up with they were looking for (whatever that is!)

They are hopelessly mis-matched against an experienced, well resourced and well prepared EU team, while the UK admits it has done no impact studies.

And they have no Plan B.

solodeogloria

whatstherush wrote: »

Last week the Irish government were being "incredibly stupid" or words to that affect, now we have a win win deal for everyone, where all Irish demands are being met, Puh-lease. You can spin it any way you like but today was a bad day for your version brexit.

Good afternoon!

It would have been astronomically stupid for them to have vetoed phase 2. It was incredibly stupid to threaten that. I stand by this position.

The outcome is a good one precisely because they didn't veto and are seemingly willing to accept other solutions in phase 2.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

They have already sacrificed those pawns by taking the SM and CU off the table.


Well they have been relying on a divide and conquer approach with everything so far and you can see how far it has got them.



They are hopelessly mis-matched against an experienced, well resourced and well prepared EU team, while the UK admits it has done no impact studies.

And they have no Plan B.

£40bn is a lot of money for smoke and mirrors.

Blowfish

flutered wrote: »

according to reports johnston and grove have giving this their imprematur, so no much opposition left if the spokes men have surrundered

Phase 1 sure, but with May's 'nothing's agreed until everything's agreed', that means that the entire thing will be put to Parlaiment at once, not just Phase 1. If the Brexiteers don't like the trade deal negotiated, the whole thing will collapse.

brickster69

Next step Trade and Defense

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

£40bn is a lot of money for smoke and mirrors.

In fairness you have to deduct between £16 and 24 billion for a two year implementation period, because the UK already pays that for EU membership, and the implementation period extends that membership.

And no trade deal, no cash.

Water John

Listening to Sammy Wilson nonsense would really, do your head. So Varadkar, (which he can't pronounce) and Coveney are the Green bogeymen?

You can be sure the bill will run very far North of €40Bn.

First Up

Blowfish wrote:

If the Brexiteers don't like the trade deal negotiated, the whole thing will collapse.

With the debris landing mostly on their own heads.

First Up

kowtow wrote:

And no trade deal, no cash.

You think so?

The cash is a sovereign commitment, not part of a horse trade. If the UK reneges on that, the ramifications would be almost endless.

rainbowz

Can somebody explain how an agreement on phase one where nothing has been agreed until everything has been agreed include an agreement on there being no regulatory difference between the North and the South even if the deal doesn't go ahead.
Surely everything agreed in the document in phase one has then no legal standing if the deal falls apart and there is a hard brexit between the UK and the EU.

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It would have been astronomically stupid for them to have vetoed phase 2. It was incredibly stupid to threaten that. I stand by this position.

The outcome is a good one precisely because they didn't veto and are seemingly willing to accept other solutions in phase 2.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nope they understood the strength of their position and the UK capitulated.

Leroy42

Blowfish wrote: »

Phase 1 sure, but with May's 'nothing's agreed until everything's agreed', that means that the entire thing will be put to Parlaiment at once, not just Phase 1. If the Brexiteers don't like the trade deal negotiated, the whole thing will collapse.

This is my point. First off, I don't believe that the UK are totally unprepared. I think Davies simply lied to the committee to avoid having to publish the reports.

Second, as you pointed out, May has already stated numerous times that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Based on that, the announcement today means nothing.

The UK will now use this position paper to try to get the EU to bend on other items to avoid having to have P1 terms collapse. Threaten to pull out if they don't get a reduction in whatever.

And I think that they are playing this "poor May is so caught up on every side" angle for everything it is worth. The EU have even said that they fear the UK government could collapse at any time and as such will do what it can to help May out.

Clare in Exile

I've been following this thread for the last few days - it's been a fantastic resource, full of intelligent contributions and insights.

Well moderated, it's been a useful tool to help make sense of this rather complex process.

Bravo...

First Up

rainbowz wrote:

Can somebody explain how an agreement on phase one where nothing has been agreed until everything has been agreed include an agreement on there being no regulatory difference between the North and the South even if the deal doesn't go ahead. Surely everything agreed in the document in phase one has then no legal standing if the deal falls apart and there is a hard brexit between the UK and the EU.

Sure, the UK could welsh on what they promised yesterday; I wouldn't bet my house against it.

But they have taken Ireland off the table as a negotiating tool.

Vronsky

rainbowz wrote: »

Can somebody explain how an agreement on phase one where nothing has been agreed until everything has been agreed include an agreement on there being no regulatory difference between the North and the South even if the deal doesn't go ahead.
Surely everything agreed in the document in phase one has then no legal standing if the deal falls apart and there is a hard brexit between the UK and the EU.

The document doesn't have a legal standing anyway, it's merely a gentleman's agreement.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

In fairness you have to deduct between £16 and 24 billion for a two year implementation period, because the UK already pays that for EU membership, and the implementation period extends that membership.

And no trade deal, no cash.

They've committed to paying that bill regardless according to a statement by Hammond two days ago. Also, if you deduct, say, 20 bn then that leaves 20bn for which they will essentially be getting nothing apart from the privilege of leaving an FTA with their biggest market.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"We are leaving the single market and the customs union in March 2019 - I will write it on a sign if you like."

This means a border. No ifs, buts or maybe.

No, that's the point of all this regulation alignment/deviation language.

The UK are going to mirror enough EU regulations as UK shmegulations so that they look just as if they are in the CU without admitting they are in the CU.

Why? This will be voluntary, and under their control, so they will feel better than having to do it under the iron jackboot of the Brussels Autocracy.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

This is my point. First off, I don't believe that the UK are totally unprepared. I think Davies simply lied to the committee to avoid having to publish the reports.

Well we'll see but my sources in the UK talk of frustration and exasperation among UK industry as it has failed to get any serious engagement or answers from government about practical (and increasingly urgent) issues. If they have prepared stuff, not many people know about it.

Plus, the UK has not negotiated a trade deal for 44 years. Not a lot of in-house experience to call upon.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The outcome is a good one precisely because they didn't veto

The outcome is a good one because they got what they wanted by being crystal clear that they would veto if they didn't get what they wanted.

And if the UK side renege or threaten to renege on the "no hard border" guarantee which they have put in writing, the Irish government can still veto any trade deal.

Nothing is not vetoed until everything is not vetoed.

axer

I wonder will the UK be properly held to aligning their regulations? What is the punishment for not implementing a regulation/law? Who will monitor them? Who punishes them? Who enforces the punishment? How far would they have to go with not complying before any trade deal is pulled from under them? If anything we have seen so far it is that the current British government (and future ones if they are tories) cannot be trusted. I can see the UK doing lots of sneaky stuff especially if they are struggling with their economy.

First Up

axer wrote:

I wonder will the UK be properly held to aligning their regulations. What is the punishment for not implementing a regulation/law? Who punishes them? Who enforces the punishment? How far would they have to go with not complying before any trade deal is pulled from under them? If anything we have seen so far it is that the current British government (and future ones if they are tories) cannot be trusted.

Alignment would allow for free movement of goods - i.e no inspection at borders. If combined with a free trade agreement, business could continue much as it does now as part of the Single Market.

Without alignment of standards, UK goods would risk being barred or at a minimum, case by case inspection at ports resulting in delay and cost.