Brexit discussion thread IV

MrMusician18

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems like the deal will not have a indefinite customs union clause, at least according to the Prime Ministers office.

Brexit: No 10 says it will not agree to indefinite customs union with EU





So we have the UK not willing to sign up to a agreement unless it has an end date. We have the EU who will not be willing to sign a deal if it has a date attached to it.

We could have a fudge of words from No.10 where the UK will not be in it permanently but NI would, but this would contradict her words since she was promoted to the top job about keeping the Union in place.

So its still a mess.

It won't have a date but could have a clause that states that the UK can exit the backstop unilaterally.

It's a rather meaningless clause since sovereign states can back out of agreements at any time anyway. The risk of having it written in is that the provision is more likely to be used when it's there, much like art. 50.

trellheim

As soon as we have an outcome from Brexit, whatever way it goes, she's for the chop and being assigned all the blame by her esteemed parliamentary colleagues.

In all fairness I can see the same thing re Brexit here.

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It won't have a date but could have a clause that states that the UK can exit the backstop unilaterally.

Nope, that is not a backstop, the EU will not accept it.

Of course the UK can later break any agreement they enter into, what're the EU going to do, declare war?

But the EU is going to make them honour the agreement last December, or its out in March with no deal and no transition period.

MrMusician18

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope, that is not a backstop, the EU will not accept it.

Of course the UK can later break any agreement they enter into, what're the EU going to do, declare war?

But the EU is going to make them honour the agreement last December, or its out in March with no deal and no transition period.

On the face of it such a provision would seem unacceptable, but in reality it's just stating the obvious. No one can force the UK to observe the backstop and if it decides to abandon it, there is nothing Ireland or the EU can do to force them to. Having it written into the text or not doesn't change that fact.

In the event of the Backstop being abandoned you'd effectively get an instant hard Brexit, the thought of which is driving this compromise at the moment and the same realities will prevent them from using such a clause in future.

But as I said, having a provision written in tempts people to use it, no matter how disastrous the side effects might be.

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

But as I said, having a provision written in tempts people to use it, no matter how disastrous the side effects might be.

Exactly. Which is why the EU will make them sign up to a real backstop.

If they break an international agreement like that, fine, everyone will know not to enter into agreements with them again. But writing it with a get-out means they don't even have to break it.

Kermit.de.frog

Juncker this morning:

https://twitter.com/PaulSommerville/status/1050736769321357312

MrMusician18

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Juncker this morning:

https://twitter.com/PaulSommerville/status/1050736769321357312

That quote is rather open to interpretation, won't conclude what exactly? The deal or that the "Ireland First" policy is meaningful.

As is sometimes the case, it comes down to punctuation.

MrMusician18

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly. Which is why the EU will make them sign up to a real backstop.

If they break an international agreement like that, fine, everyone will know not to enter into agreements with them again. But writing it with a get-out means they don't even have to break it.

In that event they would have to break the Good Friday Agreement as well, so wouldn't the world know anyway?

Whether it's written down within a legal text or not it is a matter of observable reality that States can abandon treaties at any time.

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That quote is rather open to interpretation, won't conclude what exactly? The deal or that the "Ireland First" policy is meaningful.

As is sometimes the case, it comes down to punctuation.

Well it is either 'We won't conclude the negotiations' or Juncker has had a complete about face in his stance in the critical hours of live negotiations.

I think it is clear what he means.

Hurrache

His use of the term we won't conclude I would imagine means we won't conclude with the deal.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Something changed FG's mind on special status for northern Ireland. Kenny's government absolutely opposed it.
What that was is a matter of opinion I suppose, but given SF have been advocating for it since the UK decided to leave, it is fair to say that they changed FG's mind or led on that issue.

What could have changed in FG since Kenny left his position ? Absolutely nothing springs to mind ? Not a single thing.

It's fair to say SF led on that issue it's pure speculation to suggest that SF changed FG minds

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Whether it's written down within a legal text or not it is a matter of observable reality that States can abandon treaties at any time.

Yes, and when they do, there are consequences.

If the agreement allows them to end the backstop unilaterally, they can end it and NOT break an agreement. It is no agreement at all.

MrMusician18

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What could have changed in FG since Kenny left his position ? Absolutely nothing springs to mind ? Not a single thing.

It's fair to say SF led on that issue it's pure speculation to suggest that SF changed FG minds

FG hasn't changed policy which ultimately boils down to "max. mitigation".
If anything the Irish policy is being driven not by FG but by the Civil Service who do not want to see entire careers worth of work trashed for no good reason.

SF are mere observers, not drivers.

MrMusician18

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and when they do, there are consequences.

If the agreement allows them to end the backstop unilaterally, they can end it and NOT break an agreement. It is no agreement at all.

Of course there would be consequences, the same consequence of no deal today - the withdrawal agreement would fall apart in it's entirety and immediately.

It would in fact be a much greater crisis than Brexit.

Leroy42

If there is an end date in the agreement then the pressure is on both sides to come to an arrangement before the date. No date means that the EU can simply keep putting it off indefinitely, with whatever excuse/reason they want.

The EU cannot stop the UK leaving at any time, as BRexit shows, put the pressure is on the UK to have everything agreed and in place prior to triggering it.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What could have changed in FG since Kenny left his position ? Absolutely nothing springs to mind ? Not a single thing.

It's fair to say SF led on that issue it's pure speculation to suggest that SF changed FG minds

It's a fairly big change of mind or policy.
FGer's will never admit to who convinced them,(they haven't come that far yet) but the evidence is there that SF made all the early running on Special Status so speculating that it was their argument that won out, is closer to the truth than, 'Nah, nobody listens to them shinners' etc etc.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a fairly big change of mind or policy.
FGer's will never admit to who convinced them,(they haven't come that far yet) but the evidence is there that SF made all the early running on Special Status so speculating that it was their argument that won out, is closer to the truth than, 'Nah, nobody listens to them shinners' etc etc.

What evidence is their that FG changed their minds because of SF? Show your work as a teacher would say.
Who said' Nah, nobody listens to them shinners'. You've made the wild claim now back it up.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What evidence is their that FG changed their minds because of SF? Show your work as a teacher would say.
Who said' Nah, nobody listens to them shinners'. You've made the wild claim now back it up.

Eh, can you reread what I actually said?

'The evidence is there that SF made all the early running....etc etc'

Now, I may be missing something here but what evidence would exist if I believe 'FG would never admit to having their minds changed'?

It is speculation based on the evidence that SF made plenty of noise on the subject since the Brexit vote.

Leroy42

Just reading an interesting thread on Twitter in regards to the transition period (should an agreement be achieved).

The plan is that the EU will contact all third party countries (Canada etc) to ask them to treat the UK as an EU member during the transition period. However, there is a legal question over whether this is legal. Of course any country can agree, but the point is they don't have to agree. They made the deal with the EU, not individual members. And a third country could not really be held liable since the EU is changing not the 3rd country.

What will the EU do should the 3rd country request a renegotiation since the EU is effectively losing one of it biggest components?

TL;DR, the transition period does not guarantee that the UK will continue to enjoy the current trade deals outside of the EU.

Spanish Eyes

Leaving the EU cannot be made easy. Can it?

Otherwise some countries will just feck out of it tomorrow. Think about it.

If ROI was not so intrinsically caught up in all this, I think we would just shrug and say, well get on with it mate. But we are not in that situation are we.

Hope EU stays at our back.

Kermit.de.frog

Surely the fundamentalist eurosceptics of the tory party won't stand over this!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/12/revealed-secret-plans-for-brexit-extension-option-to-appease-dup

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a fairly big change of mind or policy.
FGer's will never admit to who convinced them,(they haven't come that far yet) but the evidence is there that SF made all the early running on Special Status so speculating that it was their argument that won out, is closer to the truth than, 'Nah, nobody listens to them shinners' etc etc.

Special Status for NI became an option when the EU said it was an option. That was not at all a given 2 years ago.

Nody

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Leaving the EU cannot be made easy. Can it?

Leaving EU is very easy; one letter from the government and a country can leave. Leaving without driving their economy off a cliff however is a completely different ball game and that's the part UK is only now starting to figure out is actually the case.

Leroy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Surely the fundamentalist eurosceptics of the tory party won't stand over this!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/12/revealed-secret-plans-for-brexit-extension-option-to-appease-dup

But what option do they have?

They either take the deal being offered or force a no deal. Whilst they are full of brave talk of a no deal, no credible politician is going to want to be seen as the person involved in that should the probable happen (recession, long delays etc etc.)

If the above do happen, the calls for a peoples vote will surely go into overdrive, and if Brexit is overturned their entire dream is gone forever.

This may not be what they hoped for, but it is a step on the road.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Special Status for NI became an option when the EU said it was an option. That was not at all a given 2 years ago.

Be that as it may. There were political parties calling for it though from the vote and political parties who were opposed to it, who have changed their tunes.

Water John

Look Francie, if the big crash doesn't happen and all of us on the island are saved from its consequences, it's thanks to SF. That might make you happy.
Now lets follow the real discussions as they head close to the wire.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just reading an interesting thread on Twitter in regards to the transition period (should an agreement be achieved).

The plan is that the EU will contact all third party countries (Canada etc) to ask them to treat the UK as an EU member during the transition period. However, there is a legal question over whether this is legal. Of course any country can agree, but the point is they don't have to agree. They made the deal with the EU, not individual members. And a third country could not really be held liable since the EU is changing not the 3rd country.

What will the EU do should the 3rd country request a renegotiation since the EU is effectively losing one of it biggest components?

TL;DR, the transition period does not guarantee that the UK will continue to enjoy the current trade deals outside of the EU.

Europe doesn't need to write to anyone.
Article 50 says

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

The European council can extend the period by which the EU treaties still apply to the UK and they will do this once a withdrawal period is agreed. The 'deal' the EU are currently negotiating with the UK is what form the withdrawal agreement will take. If they can't agree on this, then the EU crashes out and all treaties are null and void on the 31st of March next year. If they do agree a withdrawal agreement, it will include extension of the treaties.

Leroy42

The point being that the 'understand' of the media is that the transition period will leave current agreements in place, as if the UK were part of the EU. But it is not in the gift of the EU to grant this. Canada, for example, is under no obligation to offer the same terms to the UK as they currently have with the EU. They might, but they might not.

But it appears that this has not been planned for. What price will Canada look for in return for what is essentially an act of goodwill?

FrancieBrady

Water John wrote: »

Look Francie, if the big crash doesn't happen and all of us on the island are saved from its consequences, it's thanks to SF. That might make you happy.
Now lets follow the real discussions as they head close to the wire.

:D:D:D In other words just let us say whatever we want and don't challenge it?

Very good John.

Winters

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Leaving the EU cannot be made easy. Can it?

Otherwise some countries will just feck out of it tomorrow. Think about it.

If ROI was not so intrinsically caught up in all this, I think we would just shrug and say, well get on with it mate. But we are not in that situation are we.

Hope EU stays at our back.

You would have to say that if Greece were exiting the EU in the same manner we wouldn't be all that bothered. Not the same geographical or political links. Also no internal borders with EU. That would be the easiest member to leave I reckon. But still, economic suicide for them.

Edit, just remembered Bulgaria are now a member. So one internal border.