Brexit discussion thread III

recedite

axer wrote: »

Is my understanding correct that there must be some sort of withdrawal document that is signed by both the UK and EU with regards leaving the EU no matter what for the UK to leave the EU - even if talks break down completely?
Or is it the case that once article 50 is triggered it is just a countdown and nothing more is actually required legally for the UK to leave the EU?

Its the latter.
Its like splitting up with your partner/spouse. You can make up a detailed list of everything he is going to get, and everything she is going to get.
Or you can just say "I'm leaving" walk out, and slam the door.

recedite

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And DD promptly agrees to work with Verhofstadt to make the Joint Document legally binding:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/940579318962499584

That "legal text" would be the first draft of the Withdrawal Agreement.
As I said, don't hold your breath waiting for the final draft to be signed and ratified.

solodeogloria

listermint wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105143336&postcount=5706

But right here you said you wouldnt give up your citizenship.

The good Ship Solo changes tack at every opportunity including voting remain then changing to exit. I cant keep up because I am unsure if you can either.

Good afternoon!

Requesting PR doesn't require you to change nationality.

I wish people would read what I actually say rather than what they want me to say. That would make things much easier.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

Its the latter.
Its like splitting up with your partner/spouse. You can make up a detailed list of everything he is going to get, and everything she is going to get.
Or you can just say "I'm leaving" walk out, and slam the door.

Quite True, but that would normally mean you can never come back, loose access to the kids and find your clothes on the lawn on fire along with the car the next morning.

Might sound like a great idea, but you are giving up any chance to get anything in the future.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Requesting PR doesn't require you to change nationality.

I wish people would read what I actually say rather than what they want me to say. That would make things much easier.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No one asked you to change your nationality, but it appears you change your mind on what you want to say all to often.

Alas , just keeping track of the past mentality to see what the future one will be.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

That "legal text" would be the first draft of the Withdrawal Agreement.
As I said, don't hold your breath waiting for the final draft to be signed and ratified.

So you have no problem with a minister in the government, and the Brexit minister at that, first lying openly to parliament about the work he had done (or not done in his case), then claiming that any deal made by the PM was just a bit of banter and now has rowed back and claimed it will be legally binding?

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Quite True, but that would normally mean you can never come back, loose access to the kids and find your clothes on the lawn on fire along with the car the next morning.

Might sound like a great idea, but you are giving up any chance to get anything in the future.

...hence all these painfully slow negotiations.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

claiming that any deal made by the PM was just a bit of banter and now has rowed back and claimed it will be legally binding?

When you see a "sale agreed" sign up outside a house, is that just a bit of banter, or is it legally binding? The answer is neither.

Davis has repeated the caveat several times over the airwaves "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", and it is also inserted into the text.
Its not his fault if people like you refuse to listen, and instead come to your own faulty conclusions.

Chips Lovell

We've warned before about personalising the debate. Stick to the issues please.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

When you see a "sale agreed" sign up outside a house, is that just a bit of banter, or is it legally binding? The answer is neither.

Davis has repeated the caveat several times over the airwaves "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", and it is also inserted into the text.
Its not his fault if people like you refuse to listen, and instead come to your own faulty conclusions.

You are arguing a point that even Davies doesn't agree with.

He has just completely rowed back on his comment, even going as far as to say it will be legally done.

recedite

That "legal text" would be in the first draft of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

That "legal text" would be in the first draft of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Right so Davies now agrees that this will be legally binding, not simply a matter of statement of intent (the actual mechanics of getting it legally binding is less important that the understanding. A verbal agreement is legally binding if both parties are aware of that fact).

So you are still arguing that it isn't, even though the man himself admits that it is!

Professor Moriarty

Barnier and Weber joining Verhofstadt in criticising Davis and demanding concrete assurances on last Friday's agreement by this Thursday. Weber also criticising May for misleading British public about Brexit bill which he says must be paid regardless of a FTA agreement.

blanch152

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right so Davies now agrees that this will be legally binding, not simply a matter of statement of intent (the actual mechanics of getting it legally binding is less important that the understanding. A verbal agreement is legally binding if both parties are aware of that fact).

So you are still arguing that it isn't, even though the man himself admits that it is!

Nevertheless, all the Agreement said was that the UK was committed to doing something. It didn't say that both sides agreed that it will happen.

There was also no agreement on what the something was. The Irish/EU side produced a list of 172? items that they believe were required. The UK side never agreed with this list. The Irish/EU side believe that the 172? items meant a hard border was impossible, the UK side haven't agreed.

All of that is moot unless and until there is a no-deal hard Brexit.

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

Nevertheless, all the Agreement said was that the UK was committed to doing something. It didn't say that both sides agreed that it will happen.

There was also no agreement on what the something was. The Irish/EU side produced a list of 172? items that they believe were required. The UK side never agreed with this list. The Irish/EU side believe that the 172? items meant a hard border was impossible, the UK side haven't agreed.

All of that is moot unless and until there is a no-deal hard Brexit.

Sorry, but what? They agreed that they were committed to doing something but not that it would actually happen?

Please have a reread of what you just posted and tell me that you understand how crazy it sounds.

On that basis nothing ever actually means anything at all.

I mean, you did see May shaking Juncker hand right? and that both said agreement had been reached to allow them move on

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, but what? They agreed that they were committed to doing something but not that it would actually happen?

Please have a reread of what you just posted and tell me that you understand how crazy it sounds.

Does it really, in light of ongoing British politics as best evidenced by Davis' musings of the weekend and his apparent capacity for supersonic flip-flopping?

Leroy42 wrote: »

On that basis nothing ever actually means anything at all.

See, you must surely begin to understand how the Tory machine at the Brexit helm is working...you've not forgotten about that "sectoral impact assessments thing-non-thing yet, surely? :pac:

In that context, his mention of formalising anything in 'legal texts' in that tweet, would have me running for the hills, tbh. Or perhaps, more simply, roll eyes and assort that with a gallic shrug.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I mean, you did see May shaking Juncker hand right? and that both said agreement had been reached to allow them move on

Juncker probably wasn't expecting Davis and the Brextremists to row back so quickly and publicly on the Friday deal.

That's why I referred to Peregrinus post as opening my eyes to the possibility of actual method underpinning Davis' madness of the weekend: they're still after a no deal Brexit, torpedoing May's commitment and maintaining ambiguity helps achieving that.

Blowfish

recedite wrote: »

That "legal text" would be the first draft of the Withdrawal Agreement.
As I said, don't hold your breath waiting for the final draft to be signed and ratified.

It should be pointed out that the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' only refers to the Withdrawal Bill, not the future relationship agreement.

From my understanding of what the EU have published, they are expecting two agreements. The first is the Withdrawal Agreement and must be signed and ratified before the 2019 Brexit deadline. This includes the stuff just mentioned, plus the phase 2 items like transition period and an 'overall understanding' of a framework of the future relationship. In this context, 'overall understanding' is just a high level agreement, e.g. the promise to begin discussions on a trade deal in x,y and z sectors.

The second agreement is the 'Future relationship' one, or (more than likely at this point) FTA. Given Davis' comments, the EU are more than likely deliberately going to ensure that as little as possible of the details of this ends up in the Withdrawal Bill and it'll all be hashed out later. To be able to start on the FTA, the UK will need to ratify the Withdrawal Bill and cement their promises.

Of course, that's just my guess about how they plan on playing it out. I'm no lawyer so I could be way off.

[edit] Link that seems to support the above, though again IANAL.

recedite

Blowfish wrote: »

To be able to start on the FTA, the UK will need to ratify the Withdrawal Bill and cement their promises.

Of course, that's just my guess about how they plan on playing it out. I'm no lawyer so I could be way off.

My guess is that they will certify next Friday that Phase 1 has reached a satisfactory conclusion. Phase 2 can start anytime after that, so I assume not until January, as politicians are not known for working over holiday periods.

EU will be pushing for this Withdrawal Agreement to be signed ASAP, but UK will try to draw it out as long as possible. They won't want to ratify it until they know exactly what is in the FTA. So the timing could well become the source of some "tension" between the two parties.

Blowfish

recedite wrote: »

My guess is that they will certify next Friday that Phase 1 has reached a satisfactory conclusion. Phase 2 can start anytime after that, so I assume not until January, as politicians are not known for working over holiday periods.

EU will be pushing for this Withdrawal Agreement to be signed ASAP, but UK will try to draw it out as long as possible. They won't want to ratify it until they know exactly what is in the FTA. So the timing could well become the source of some "tension" between the two parties.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that the EU can't start negotiating an FTA until it knows concretely what the UK wants the future relationship to be, I.e. phase 2 is mostly complete.

recedite

Blowfish wrote: »

That's all well and good, except for the fact that the EU can't start negotiating an FTA until it knows concretely what the UK wants the future relationship to be, I.e. phase 2 is mostly complete.

The UK wants the future relationship to be a FTA. Is this a circular argument you have created?

blanch152

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, but what? They agreed that they were committed to doing something but not that it would actually happen?

Please have a reread of what you just posted and tell me that you understand how crazy it sounds.

On that basis nothing ever actually means anything at all.

I mean, you did see May shaking Juncker hand right? and that both said agreement had been reached to allow them move on

Have you actually read the agreement?

Firstly, there is paragraph 5:

"Under the caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the joint commitments set out below in this joint report shall be reflected in the Withdrawal Agreement in full detail"

The whole Phase 1 Agreement is conditional.

Secondly, read the language in other paragraphs:

"The UK and EU27 Member States will facilitate entry and residence of partners in a durable relationship"

So both sides will facilitate something. Grand, that is clear. On Ireland and Northern Ireland:

"Both Parties affirm that the achievements, benefits and commitments of the peace process will remain of paramount importance...."

Yes, that is clear, both sides and they affirm etc.

"In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market"

That is absolutely clear, the UK will ensure its own territorial integrity.

"Both Parties will honour their commitments to the PEACE and INTERREG funding programmes...."

Again clarity, both parties and will honour. However, in relation to the border:

"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement"


Q.1. Why isn't the EU committed to protecting North-south cooperation?

Q.2. Why isn't the EU committed to a guarantee of avoiding a hard border?

Q.3. Why doesn't it say that "Both sides agree that there will not be a hard border"? After all, that is what we are being told in Ireland was agreed.

Q.4. Why does it say the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment rather than "Both sides will ensure there is no hard border?"

Q.5. Why is it full alignment with "those" rules rather than "all" rules? Does that mean there are "some" rules where there won't be alignment? Does that mean a hard border?

Q.6. What is North-South cooperation? Is it the small list in the GFA? Is it the list of 172 items put forward by the Irish government? As this is quite a lengthy agreement, why isn't this clarified? If it is only the small list, does that mean a hard border?

Q.7. What is meant by the all-island economy? Does that mean easy border passage for people working on one side of the border and living on the other? Does it mean mutual arrangements for social welfare, health and education costs for those living on one side and working on the other? Does it have a meaning beyond that in goods and services?

Q.8. Why is there so much ambiguity in this paragraph?

Well, the answer to all of those questions are in the different spins put on the Agreement by Varadkar, Davis, Coveney, May and Barnier. They can agree on the language but they can't agree on what it means. Hence the various statements? Which one is right? Who knows, but one thing is absolutely clear, the EU has hedged its bets on the need to impose a hard border.

Of course, none of the above matters if we get a free-trade agreement and alignment with the customs union and the Single Market in goods. In that case, we may never know what those sentences mean.

kowtow

blanch152 wrote: »

"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement"

...

Q.8. Why is there so much ambiguity in this paragraph?

Well, the answer to all of those questions are in the different spins put on the Agreement by Varadkar, Davis, Coveney, May and Barnier. They can agree on the language but they can't agree on what it means. Hence the various statements? Which one is right? Who knows, but one thing is absolutely clear, the EU has hedged its bets on the need to impose a hard border.

Of course, none of the above matters if we get a free-trade agreement and alignment with the customs union and the Single Market in goods. In that case, we may never know what those sentences mean.

Exactly. And this is what Davies said to Marr (apologies for the lengthy quote but I think it is important). The basic promise made in the agreement is that the UK will propose specific solutions for Ireland if the [trade deal] doesn't solve the problem in the meantime. In the absence of those solutions alignment in very limited areas will be maintained.

Before we get to legal enforceability we would need to get to a strong duty of good faith on the part of Ireland and the EU in agreeing those solutions, otherwise the UK would be handing us a veto. I doubt very much that we will ever see a 'legal text' which hands Ireland or the EU a veto over the methods by which the UK enforces it's border (and, let us not forget, there has always been a border - soft or otherwise) with Ireland.

There will be enormous pressure to find an agreed solution, and that is what will happen once everybody stops trying to score points.

AM: What does full alignment mean?
DD: Well let me just explain. ‘No divergence’ would have meant
actually taking cut and paste rules, right. ‘Full alignment’ means –
I mean it covers about a number of areas, about four important
ones. Agriculture, road and rail –
AM: Health, tourism, transport.
DD: Water. Well, it’s unlikely to have much impact on health or
indeed on education which are two of the sectors in there. But the
ones it does have impact on, we’re not looking to create a
circumstance where animal welfare is worse in Britain than
elsewhere. We’re not looking to create a circumstance where
safety of food is worse, or indeed pollutions of waterways. So we
will meet the outcomes, we’ll meet the outcomes but not do it by
just copying or doing what the European Union does.


....


So number one. No deal
means that we won’t be paying the money. ....Now look, one of the things we have had as a major
objective, a major negotiating objective for the British government
and we don’t normally lay our red lines out in public, that’s one of
the things I’ve always said, is we want to protect the peace
process and we also want to protect Ireland from the impact of
Brexit for them. So we – you know – this was a statement of
intent more than anything else. It was much more a statement of
intent than it was a legally enforceable thing.
AM: Here is the crucial question. That promise on full alignment
that we have made not just to the EU but also in specific terms to
the Irish government, to Dublin, if we don’t get a deal does that
promise get torn up?

DD: Well I think if we don’t get a deal we’re going to have to find
a way of making sure we keep the frictionless border as it were an
invisible border in Northern Ireland. We do it at the moment.
Understand something. At the moment there are different tax and
levy regimes and export North and South of the border. We
manage that without having border posts allotted along the 300
rows there and we’ll find a way of doing that too.
AM: The Taoiseach thinks that he has got that full alignment in his
back pocket. That is an absolutely firm promise from Theresa May
and yourself and the British government. He may be watching
this. Can you look in the camera and say that we absolutely
commit ourselves to that?
DD: What we say is we commit ourselves to maintaining a
frictionless invisible border. That’s what we undertake and that’s
what we –
AM: Even if there’s no deal?
DD: Even with no deal. Even with a WTO deal, we’ll find –
AM: How? Cause you know, that is a border between the EU and
us.
DD: I strongly recommend reading our paper that we published.
We published 14 papers this year, this summer –
AM: Just tell people, is it a technical solution, how can it be done?

Enzokk

recedite wrote: »

The UK wants the future relationship to be a FTA. Is this a circular argument you have created?

The UK needs a FTA, the EU has set out its requirements already in regards to a trade agreement. There needs to be regulatory alignment/no divergence to ensure there is no border on the island of Ireland. If it comes down to a staring contest on who will blink first the UK will have to commit to no deal to be able to play the game. The negotiations so far makes one think it will be the UK that blinks first, but I think there may still be a situation where the UK actually goes full nuclear with no deal.

kowtow wrote: »

Exactly. And this is what Davies said to Marr (apologies for the lengthy quote but I think it is important). The basic promise made in the agreement is that the UK will propose specific solutions for Ireland if the [trade deal] doesn't solve the problem in the meantime. In the absence of those solutions alignment in very limited areas will be maintained.

Before we get to legal enforceability we would need to get to a strong duty of good faith on the part of Ireland and the EU in agreeing those solutions, otherwise the UK would be handing us a veto. I doubt very much that we will ever see a 'legal text' which hands Ireland or the EU a veto over the methods by which the UK enforces it's border (and, let us not forget, there has always been a border - soft or otherwise) with Ireland.

There will be enormous pressure to find an agreed solution, and that is what will happen once everybody stops trying to score points.

The EU has already stated that the only solution seems to be that NI stays in the CU and SM to ensure there is no border. The UK can propose all sorts of solutions but if they have committed to ensuring there is no hard infrastructure and no checks then the only way to do that and to have the UK be free to have their own trade deals would be a sea border.

In the same way that David Davis has been saying that its not legally enforceable, ensuring that there is no sea border is up in the air as well in that case. We could still see a sea border if the agreement is not set in stone, just as likely as a border between Ireland and NI.

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK needs a FTA, the EU has set out its requirements already in regards to a trade agreement. There needs to be regulatory alignment/no divergence to ensure there is no border on the island of Ireland. If it comes down to a staring contest on who will blink first the UK will have to commit to no deal to be able to play the game. The negotiations so far makes one think it will be the UK that blinks first, but I think there may still be a situation where the UK actually goes full nuclear with no deal.

And there's me thinking they had us over a barrel.

You're 100% right in your reading of the sitch.

flaneur

If they do go 'full nuclear', it will be interesting to see how long they last before coming back looking for a trade deal with the EU.

I have a feeling the economic realities won't be understood until they're felt. It's all 'fake news' and 'project fear' until it isn't.

An Ciarraioch

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK needs a FTA, the EU has set out its requirements already in regards to a trade agreement. There needs to be regulatory alignment/no divergence to ensure there is no border on the island of Ireland. If it comes down to a staring contest on who will blink first the UK will have to commit to no deal to be able to play the game. The negotiations so far makes one think it will be the UK that blinks first, but I think there may still be a situation where the UK actually goes full nuclear with no deal.





The EU has already stated that the only solution seems to be that NI stays in the CU and SM to ensure there is no border. The UK can propose all sorts of solutions but if they have committed to ensuring there is no hard infrastructure and no checks then the only way to do that and to have the UK be free to have their own trade deals would be a sea border.

In the same way that David Davis has been saying that its not legally enforceable, ensuring that there is no sea border is up in the air as well in that case. We could still see a sea border if the agreement is not set in stone, just as likely as a border between Ireland and NI.

Peter Foster, of the Daily Telegraph, is pessimistic about the UK's chances of a trade deal:

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/940635241328324608

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Peter Foster, of the Daily Telegraph, is pessimistic about the UK's chances of a trade deal:

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/940635241328324608

If a Telegraph journalist sees it that way then it is an appalling vista. An interesting fact buried in his tweets is that the Treasury forecasts a drop of 4.6-7.8% in GDP by 2213 if they go for a Canada deal. Equivalent to an 8p rise in income tax.

Pointed remark in the comments section: "And your newspaper has been leading the charge on this?" Quite.

Nody

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Peter Foster, of the Daily Telegraph, is pessimistic about the UK's chances of a trade deal:

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/940635241328324608

Sorry but why is this a surprise to everyone? Average time to write a trade deal is 7 years; the more comprehensive it is the longer it takes to sign...

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This talk of reneging on commitments is quite dangerous and might be off-putting to other countries as well as companies and individuals contemplating investing in a post-Brexit UK. Nobody is going to want to deal with a capricious government which might endanger their investments.

I think this is key: businesses have to presume 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'. Keeping functions in the UK that depend on easy access to the single market is far too much risk. The UK crashing out could leave them and their clients in serious trouble. Particularly if the decision to wait-and-see was seen as negligent.

Staying is a gamble on easy access being secured and the chaotic message from May, Davis, Gove and BoJo is saying that nothing is agreed, nothing is certain, that they still refuse to acknowledge the necessary choices. This chaos should convince businesses its time to assume the worst. The only thing that could mitigate the outflow is that British business leaders (and civil servants) have been largely oblivious to the risks so far.

Northern Ireland maintains the necessary regulatory alignment for an open border with the single market. Northern Ireland and Great Britain maintain the necessary regulatory alignment for no sea border within the UK. The UK leaves the customs union and single market to diverge from single market regulations and sign free trade deals with the world.

May appeared to signal last Friday that she understood she could only pick two of these outcomes. That was more important than what she actually chose. But since Friday, its clear the British government simply lied. To themselves, or the EU, or the British voters. But there is no escape: they will not be able to fudge the final deal. If the British are not prepared to make that choice, they will crash out without a deal in the hardest possible Brexit.

Water John

EU really pissed off with Davis. Barnier gone back to make his remarks in French.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but why is this a surprise to everyone? Average time to write a trade deal is 7 years; the more comprehensive it is the longer it takes to sign...

What is surprising is that it was written by the Europe Editor of a paper that is staunchly pro Brexit. The facts are unsurprising.

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

The EU has already stated that the only solution seems to be that NI stays in the CU and SM to ensure there is no border. The UK can propose all sorts of solutions but if they have committed to ensuring there is no hard infrastructure and no checks then the only way to do that and to have the UK be free to have their own trade deals would be a sea border.


In the same way that David Davis has been saying that its not legally enforceable, ensuring that there is no sea border is up in the air as well in that case. We could still see a sea border if the agreement is not set in stone, just as likely as a border between Ireland and NI.

I don't think you read my post where I quoted the exact words from the agreement. The UK made a clear and unambiguous promise that there will be no sea border:

"In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market"

In relation to a hard border with the South, the UK made a "commitment" and an ambiguous one at that to avoiding a hard border:

"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement"

That paragraph is full of get-out clauses as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Water John

Davis seems to nearly managing to talk himself out of a 'not very difficult job'.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If a Telegraph journalist sees it that way then it is an appalling vista. An interesting fact buried in his tweets is that the Treasury forecasts a drop of 4.6-7.8% in GDP by 2213 if they go for a Canada deal. Equivalent to an 8p rise in income tax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/940635241328324608
"lower tax receipts by £36Bn"

Which is by coincidence is almost exactly twice the magic £350m a week that leave said they'd save.

Enzokk

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think you read my post where I quoted the exact words from the agreement. The UK made a clear and unambiguous promise that there will be no sea border:

"In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market"

In relation to a hard border with the South, the UK made a "commitment" and an ambiguous one at that to avoiding a hard border:

"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement"

That paragraph is full of get-out clauses as I have repeatedly pointed out.

The wording is either as airtight or loose as we want to see it. You see no border between NI and the UK. But you see loose ends everywhere else. I see a guarantee that there will not be a border between the EU and NI. They even make it easy, if A fails then option B will be proposed. If B is not sufficient then C will come into effect to protect our guarantee of no border. There is no option D, it is either a FTA that ensures no physical border, or specific solutions, or CU and SM membership in all but name for the whole UK.

I don't see absolutes in either statement to be honest. If you want to believe there will be no NI and UK border due to this agreement then it stands to reason that the other portions will be read and understood in the same absolutes as well. But if you see get out clauses in the EU and NI border then it stands to reason the same is true for the whole document.

If the UK guarantees it will avoid a hard border, it promises to not have a hard border between NI and the EU. A guarantee is a promise and avoiding something means to ensure it doesn't happen (my interpretation of what guarantee and avoiding actually means). Either way, I still think there is scope for movement on either issue, just because the UK politicians that are discussing Brexit has shown that they are not to be trusted in any way (we have 58 studies ongoing to show the impact of Brexit, no we don't, nothing to see here). This goes for all solutions on the table right now, hard or soft or sea border.

flaneur

The issue I see is they're guaranteeing things without any idea how they'll deliver on those guarantees.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

"In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market"

The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border.

I understand you work backwards from your nightmare of a UI but doesn't the word guarantee have more weight than ensure?

If the DUP hadn't had influence over the CONs they might actually have found themselves in a position where the north could have acted as an attractive economic bridge between Britain and the EU, but that wasn't good enough for the DUP who'd rather a return to subsistence farming as long as it ensured the north remained a dependency of England.

As Naomi Long said:

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think you read my post where I quoted the exact words from the agreement. The UK made a clear and unambiguous promise that there will be no sea border:

"In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market"

Actually, that's not "a clear and unambiguous promise that there will be no sea border". It's not even close.

Look at what's said: NI businesses will have unfettered access to the whole of the UK internal market. And now look at what's not said: GB businesses will have unfettered access to the whole of the UK internal market.

So, if you want to be weaselly, this is a one-way commitment. This promise could be honoured by having NI in effect (or even formally) subject to full Single Market/Customs Union rules, plus adopting a rule in GB that anything which complies with SM/CU requirements can be freely sold in in GB. NI businesses could then sell into GB without any need for checks, controls, inspection, etc. But the converse need not be true for GB business selling into NI.

blanch152 wrote: »

In relation to a hard border with the South, the UK made a "commitment" and an ambiguous one at that to avoiding a hard border . . . That paragraph is full of get-out clauses as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Well, perhaps. But, even if so, remember that different people are interested in different paragraphs.

The para 49 commitments are given to satisfy the EU, and if the EU doesn't think that the UK has honoured them, there are obvious consequences for the UK in terms of making further agreements with the EU. What matters here is not whether the UK argues that it is legitimately relying on get-out clauses, but whether the EU agrees with that view.

But the para 50 commitments are given to satisfy the DUP, and the period during which the UK government needs to be mortally worried about pissing off the DUP is a strictly time-limited one.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

Exactly. And this is what Davies said to Marr (apologies for the lengthy quote but I think it is important). The basic promise made in the agreement is that the UK will propose specific solutions for Ireland if the [trade deal] doesn't solve the problem in the meantime. In the absence of those solutions alignment in very limited areas will be maintained.

Before we get to legal enforceability we would need to get to a strong duty of good faith on the part of Ireland and the EU in agreeing those solutions, otherwise the UK would be handing us a veto. I doubt very much that we will ever see a 'legal text' which hands Ireland or the EU a veto over the methods by which the UK enforces it's border (and, let us not forget, there has always been a border - soft or otherwise) with Ireland.

The duty of good faith works both ways, and is undermined by a claim that the fallback commitment of full regulatory alignment only applies "in very limited areas". It applies in relation to all " those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement". That's a sweeping commitment, as anyone who actually participates in the all-island economy knows.

Davis doesn't participate in the all-island economy, and doesn't appear to know anyone who does, which presumably is why we find him suggesting that this commitment is "unlikely to have much impact on health or indeed on education"; it will affect them both, since both are traded across the border quite extensively. It will affect all goods and services that are now, or may in the future be, traded across the Irish border.

The fallback commitment is of course Plan C; both sides hope that it will never come into play. The fallback commitment only comes into play if there is no agreement on a trade deal which avoids a hard border (Plan A) and no agreement on other ways of avoiding a hard border (Plan . In fact, everybody is working towards Plan A. So, all going well, the question of whether the UK is honouring the fallback commitment in Plan C will never arise; Plan C will never come into operation.

But the other point about the fallback commitment is that it operates in practice to set parameters as to what the trade deal might provide. The trade deal won't provide a lesser degree of openness in the Irish border than the fallback commitment would provide (because why would the EU agree to that?). And, since the trade deal has to be agreed between the EU and the UK, this means that it won't provide a lesser degree of openness that than the EU considers the UK to be committed to under the fallback position. Davis's view that the fallback commitment covers "about four important areas" won't cut much ice with the EU; they're going to approach the commitment on the basis that it means what it says; it covers the all-island economy. And that's what will condition their approach to the trade deal that the UK really, really needs.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

My guess is that they will certify next Friday that Phase 1 has reached a satisfactory conclusion. Phase 2 can start anytime after that, so I assume not until January, as politicians are not known for working over holiday periods.

EU will be pushing for this Withdrawal Agreement to be signed ASAP, but UK will try to draw it out as long as possible. They won't want to ratify it until they know exactly what is in the FTA . . .

That's definitely never going to happen.

The Withdrawal Agreement has to be signed, at the very latest, by 23 March 2019; that's when it has to enter into force. But talks about the terms of the trade agreement don't even start until after that date. Until the UK actually leaves, the EU will not engage in more than "preparatory and preliminary discussions on the framework for a future relationship". Most commentators seem to think this means the kind of scoping exercises that countries commonly engage in before they sit down to actually negotiate a trade deal.

This position isn't new; it was set out in plain language in the Council's negotiating platform published last April and, if the UK has ever objected to it, I haven't read about it.

What this means is that the UK will be signing a Withdrawal Agreement (which will contain binding commitments on all the matters dealt with in the Joint Report) before they know the terms of their future trade deal with the EU or even, strictly speaking, whether they will have a future trade deal at all. All they'll have is the benefit of preliminary and preparatory discussions, which may give them the warm fuzzies about the prospects for a good trade deal but don't actually amount to an actual trade deal; still less to the detailed terms of a trade deal.

(Which means, among other things, that when Tory politicians say that the exit payment is the quid pro quo for a trade deal, white man speak with forked tongue. They'll be signing up to a commitment to make the exit payment, and to an agreed basis for calculating it, and to the timetable for paying it, before they know for sure if they have a trade deal, much less what it will say. The exit payment isn't the quid pro quo for a trade deal that is favourable to the UK; it's a necessary step in building the trust, confidence and goodwill which is needed if a trade deal is to be negotiated.)

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

On what basis do you say the UK is bound to any commitments in the (unlikely) event of everything going pear-shaped?
Paragraph 49 which you have already quoted is subject to the caveat in Paragraph 5
The position here is similar to "sale agreed" when buying a house. An agreement is made, but until the contracts are signed, the house is not "sold".

When, and if, the Withdrawal Agreement has been signed and ratified, the UK will be bound by those commitments.

I disagree. I think the general rule is as set out in para 5; nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and the commitments made in the Joint Report do need to be reflected in the Withdrawal Agreement. But para 49 stands as an exception to that general rule, since it explicitly contemplates the situation where there isn't agreement, and sets out what the UK will do with respect to the Irish border in that situation . That's the only sensible way to interpret the last sentence of para 49; if you read it as being negatived by para 5, then there is no point at all in including it in the document. Yet the parties did include it, so they must have intended it to have some point or effect. So I think it operates as a particular exception to the general rule in para 5.

Having said that, I repeat, I don't see how the last sentence of para 49 could be legally enforced in the event that talks break down and there is no agreement, not even a Withdrawal Agreement. I think the sanction for the UK not honouring their commitment in that circumstance would be political, not legal. They'd be considered to be displaying bad faith to the EU, and a resumption of normal relations and the making of future agreements wouldn't be possible until this matter was resolved (most probably, by the UK doing what it has already said it would do). And I think this analysis still holds good even if the UK is not legally bound in any sense by the para 49 commitments.

recedite wrote: »

That would be regardless of the outcome of the trade talks, which will be the subject of Phase 2 negotiations.
And you can be pretty sure they won't ratify the former until they know exactly what the result is of the latter.

No. See my post above.

Samaris

Well, since talks won't start until March, it at least gives the government a couple of months to figure out what they want and what they're doing.

And to translate the WA into legally binding language.

Enzokk

More dire predictions for the UK,

Brexit SHOCK warning: Britain will be WORSE OFF out of the EU under ALL Brexit scenarios

The Rand Corporation report found a no-Brexit deal would cost the UK nearly five per cent of its overall GDP – around £104bn – over the course of ten years after Brexit....


...The study reads: "The WTO outcome would likely move the UK further from EU standards and over time significantly increase non-tariff barriers, harming the ability of UK businesses to sell goods and services to EU countries.

"The EU would also lose out under the WTO scenario, but the effect is relatively minor—a 0.7 per cent drop in GDP 10 years after Brexit."

Those are two quotes from the article. Seems that as predicted by many, the UK will need the FTA with the EU a lot more than the EU will need it. That will mean either a crash and burn, or a lot of concessions from the UK. Either way the people will lose out as those advocating for a hard Brexit will not be harmed but the voters will feel the pain. If they offer concessions and go for EU lite membership then the matter will continue to simmer and those that stand to profit from Brexit will continue to agitate for it. At the same time the UK will continue to lose out economically. This vote is nothing more than self harm and anyone advocating it is blind to the realities of what they are doing.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

(Which means, among other things, that when Tory politicians say that the exit payment is the quid pro quo for a trade deal, white man speak with forked tongue. They'll be signing up to a commitment to make the exit payment, and to an agreed basis for calculating it, and to the timetable for paying it, before they know for sure if they have a trade deal, much less what it will say. The exit payment isn't the quid pro quo for a trade deal that is favourable to the UK; it's a necessary step in building the trust, confidence and goodwill which is needed if a trade deal is to be negotiated.)

This is one of two important matters on which many Brexiteers (including some here) are confused.

The UK's withdrawl settlement is a legal and technical process. It has nothing to do with future trading terms, other than if they don't meet their financial obligations, they don't get to talk about trade terms, in which case WTO terms would apply. In other words the financial settlememt is their ticket to the negotiating table, not a negotiating tool.

The second point of confusion is what a trade "deal" represents. It is no more than the terms on which UK companies will be competing for business in the EU and vice versa. It neither guarantees or obliges anyone to buy anything from the UK. Every UK company will have to fight for its share in competition with competitors in the EU and elsewhere. Tariffs and/or border delays will significantly reduce their competitiveness.

Enzokk

So it seems that the EU is intent that the UK honour the agreement they made on Friday or there will be no trade talks.

The EU official told reporters that EU leaders meeting on Friday will ram home in guidelines to their negotiator that Britain must honour its agreements so far if it wants to discuss the future free trade treaty it wants.

EU readies 'David Davis-proof' Brexit summit

Zubeneschamali

The Rand Corporation report found a no-Brexit deal would cost the UK nearly five per cent of its overall GDP – around £104bn – over the course of ten years after Brexit....

That is not a dire prediction, that is a very cheerful prediction.

I would assume that the Rand Corporation, when they say no deal exit, must mean an orderly move to WTO terms over a transition period of years, or something like that, because a no-deal crash out in March 2019 would cost an awful lot more than 5% over 10 years.

Having said that, i will now take a look. Hmm, I downloaded the RAND paper, but it just repeats the number, it doesn't lay out how it sees the transition. I still think they are doing theoretical numbers based on a smooth transition, and ignoring the absolute mayhem that a no-deal exit would involve.

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

The wording is either as airtight or loose as we want to see it. You see no border between NI and the UK. But you see loose ends everywhere else. I see a guarantee that there will not be a border between the EU and NI. They even make it easy, if A fails then option B will be proposed. If B is not sufficient then C will come into effect to protect our guarantee of no border. There is no option D, it is either a FTA that ensures no physical border, or specific solutions, or CU and SM membership in all but name for the whole UK.

I don't see absolutes in either statement to be honest. If you want to believe there will be no NI and UK border due to this agreement then it stands to reason that the other portions will be read and understood in the same absolutes as well. But if you see get out clauses in the EU and NI border then it stands to reason the same is true for the whole document.

If the UK guarantees it will avoid a hard border, it promises to not have a hard border between NI and the EU. A guarantee is a promise and avoiding something means to ensure it doesn't happen (my interpretation of what guarantee and avoiding actually means). Either way, I still think there is scope for movement on either issue, just because the UK politicians that are discussing Brexit has shown that they are not to be trusted in any way (we have 58 studies ongoing to show the impact of Brexit, no we don't, nothing to see here). This goes for all solutions on the table right now, hard or soft or sea border.

Having been involved in drafting international agreements albeit more than 20 years ago, I read them carefully for language. Those phrases are all carefully considered. Davis has already explained the difference between "no regulatory divergence" and "regulatory alignment".

Similarly there is a huge difference between being committed to doing something and having an agreement in place to do something. Take boards for example.

I am committed to avoiding warnings, infractions and bans. That is a genuine commitment and can be taken in good faith by everyone and I signed up to that commitment when joining. However, that commitment is a long long way from there being an agreement between me and all the mods that I won't get any warnings, infractions and bans (as the record suggests:)).

Similarly, the absence of the EU from the commitment to no hard border tells a very significant story.

First Up

blanch152 wrote: »

Similarly, the absence of the EU from the commitment to no hard border tells a very significant story.

The story it tells is that the integrity of the Single Market is not up for discussion. If a hard border is to be avoided, it is for the UK to to ensure the necessary compliance.

What it is really telling the UK is that it is wasting its time trying to use the Irish border as a negotiating tool for market access.

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

The story it tells is that the integrity of the Single Market is not up for discussion. If a hard border is to be avoided, it is for the UK to to ensure the necessary compliance.

What it is really telling the UK is that it is wasting its time trying to use the Irish border as a negotiating tool for market access.

So when it comes down to it and the UK says our measures to avoid a hard border are the following technical measures blah blah blah, and the EU says we don't agree to that, and are imposing a hard border, the UK can say we met our commitment, you just didn't agree to it. And everyone can just walk away and Ireland is left with the problem.

Now, being honest, I don't see things getting that far as the UK will end up in a quasi Single Market situation if they have any sense, but if it goes badly, it is possible.

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

So when it comes down to it and the UK says our measures to avoid a hard border are the following technical measures blah blah blah, and the EU says we don't agree to that, and are imposing a hard border, the UK can say we met our commitment, you just didn't agree to it. And everyone can just walk away and Ireland is left with the problem.

Now, being honest, I don't see things getting that far as the UK will end up in a quasi Single Market situation if they have any sense, but if it goes badly, it is possible.

Which as you have pointed out is entirely the UKs problem to solve, that coupled with their absolute need for a deal with the EU.