Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

Looks like, after the noticable shirt in ERG stance the last number of days to softening about a delay, could be moving to a full 21 month postponement of Brexit

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/martin-howe-it-is-far-better-to-risk-extending-article-50-than-to-accept-mays-bad-deal.html

Basically saying that a 21 month delay is actually better than entering the transition period under the WA and they can simply crash out when they are more prepared.

I wonder what are the consequences of the UK doing something like that, basically using a delay to get around having to sign up to the WA?

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

Well you said you disagreed with something.

Yeah, this. Which I said wasn't quite true.

First Up wrote: »

If it May's proposed UK wide backstop then they will stay in the Customs Union. That means no third party deals - US or anyone else.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looks like, after the noticable shift in ERG stance the last number of days to softening about a delay, could be moving to a full 21 month postponement of Brexit

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/martin-howe-it-is-far-better-to-risk-extending-article-50-than-to-accept-mays-bad-deal.html

Basically saying that a 21 month delay is actually better than entering the transition period under the WA and they can simply crash out when they are more prepared.

I wonder what are the consequences of the UK doing something like that, basically using a delay to get around having to sign up to the WA?

Well, I would have thought a 3 month delay would only be given if the HoC had already voted to pass the WA. Otherwise it is another kick to the can.

A 21 month delay would increase the likelihood of the Art 50 being revoked, as more and more bad news regarding leaving the EU will begin to increase the opinion that Brexit is a daft idea with substantial downside and no upside. So 21 months for the 'Peoples Vote' to gain traction.

In the meantime, the UK gets left out of meetings and things like regional funding passes them by.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

Yeah, this. Which I said wasn't quite true.

Any trade deal the UK negotiates while a member of the Customs Union must comply with the EU's external tariff and be so enforced.

I call that being unable to strike third party trade deals but if you think that isn't "quite" true we can agree to differ

An Ciarraioch

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, I would have thought a 3 month delay would only be given if the HoC had already voted to pass the WA. Otherwise it is another kick to the can.

A 21 month delay would increase the likelihood of the Art 50 being revoked, as more and more bad news regarding leaving the EU will begin to increase the opinion that Brexit is a daft idea with substantial downside and no upside. So 21 months for the 'Peoples Vote' to gain traction.

In the meantime, the UK gets left out of meetings and things like regional funding passes them by.

I would presume an extension would be refused on those grounds, as it would be considered negotiating in bad faith.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looks like, after the noticable shirt in ERG stance the last number of days to softening about a delay, could be moving to a full 21 month postponement of Brexit

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/martin-howe-it-is-far-better-to-risk-extending-article-50-than-to-accept-mays-bad-deal.html

Basically saying that a 21 month delay is actually better than entering the transition period under the WA and they can simply crash out when they are more prepared.

I wonder what are the consequences of the UK doing something like that, basically using a delay to get around having to sign up to the WA?

Except for this line in his article:

The next huge point is that under the Article 50 extension the UK would not be bound by the backstop Protocol, which under May’s deal would kick in on 1st January 2021. Instead, on 1st January 2021 we would just leave unencumbered. We would be able to negotiate for a trade deal with the EU with a strong hand, and our negotiating position would not be crippled by being prospectively or actually locked into the backstop as it would be under May’s deal.

So, "we'll go for an extension and the EU will forget about the backstop". Just another Tory unicorn.

Blowfish

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Brexit day, if the WA is passed, is actually not Brexit day at all. It is merely a staging post towards Brexit day in terms of actual outcomes. But in terms of Membership, Brexit Day is a reality as from that day the UK would need to seek to rejoin rather than simply revoke A50.

I wouldn't quite agree with that as it only applies to the relationship between the EU & UK.

On Brexit day, regardless of whether there's a WA or not, the UK will legally no longer be a part of the EU and any trade agreements previously agreed by the EU and third parties will be gone. Given how few the UK will have signed by then and that there are objections WTO wise, there'll be an economic hit, WA or no WA.

Leroy42

Blowfish wrote: »

I wouldn't quite agree with that as it only applies to the relationship between the EU & UK.

On Brexit day, regardless of whether there's a WA or not, the UK will legally no longer be a part of the EU and any trade agreements previously agreed by the EU and third parties will be gone. Given how few the UK will have signed by then and that there are objections WTO wise, there'll be an economic hit, WA or no WA.

I'm not sure that is correct. Whilst they will no longer be part of the EU come 30th, the transition period is designed such that any and all current trade deals are carried over as if they were. Of course, not signing the WA means not transition, and this crash out.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Except for this line in his article:

The next huge point is that under the Article 50 extension the UK would not be bound by the backstop Protocol, which under May’s deal would kick in on 1st January 2021. Instead, on 1st January 2021 we would just leave unencumbered. We would be able to negotiate for a trade deal with the EU with a strong hand, and our negotiating position would not be crippled by being prospectively or actually locked into the backstop as it would be under May’s deal.

So, "we'll go for an extension and the EU will forget about the backstop". Just another Tory unicorn.

Well I never said it made actual sense, it simply continues on with the unicorns approach that has been the major factor in everything they have done thus far.

demfad

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure on what basis these talks are progressing. The IEA is one of the notorious Tufton Street 'think thanks' and would obviously have strong links with the ERG heads that were named there. I'd be of the view that this is based on 'no deal' which is their number one priority. The outlook I was basing my posts on was purely under the WA.

I understand. The Cato Institute also has big connections to Fox, Davis, Baker etc. Just to show that the talks are well advanced. I was replying particularly to the assertion that a UK/US deal had no chance of being passed by the end of transition. The deal would not be too far off being ready.

The question might be could a NI only backstop replace the UK wide Customs Union current backstop down the road.

In that scenario the US deal would be on under the WA.
Bear in mind the only reason the backstop is UK wide now is because of DUPs balance of power.

THe US trade deal is still a pillar of Brexit IMO.

ToBeFrank123

I can't see the UK making much headway with trade with the US. There will be trade, but not that much more than now.

It will probably mean that the UK goes from taking orders from the EU to taking orders from Washington on how they can trade and with what rules.

I would also be surprised if May's deal with the current backstop arrangement gets through the HoC. It appears on the face of it, the backstop is permanent as it stands with no easy way out for the UK. The EU have said they don't intend it to be permanent, and yet won't give a legal guarantee it isn't. We can read from that they want it permanent.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The EU have said they don't intend it to be permanent, and yet won't give a legal guarantee it isn't. We can read from that they want it permanent.

No - they just don't believe the UK when they say alternative arrangements are possible. If the UK are right, the backstop may never come into force.


But we all know they are spoofing - no such border exists anywhere.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I can't see the UK making much headway with trade with the US. There will be trade, but not that much more than now.

It will probably mean that the UK goes from taking orders from the EU to taking orders from Washington on how they can trade and with what rules.

I would also be surprised if May's deal with the current backstop arrangement gets through the HoC. It appears on the face of it, the backstop is permanent as it stands with no easy way out for the UK. The EU have said they don't intend it to be permanent, and yet won't give a legal guarantee it isn't. We can read from that they want it permanent.

There is an air of permanence around it for a few reasons;

NI isn't going anywhere and as such the passing of time in of itself won't change anything,
The UK have no actual idea of how they can resolve the issues that will arise due to diversifying standards and regulations without implementing a physical border so at the present time the problem has no solution and thus is permanent.

The first one can be answered in terms of either of UI or making NI a separate area in terms of regulations. Neither of these is a runner at the present time.
The second one is a result of the first and the current situation and it is up to the UK to try to resolve. I am amazed that more people in the UK are not demanding from the likes of the ERG and Johnson that they should have a definitive answer to this problem rather than simply letting them away with their complaints about the nasty EU. If they have answers then what they are claiming is that the EU will ignore these answers in order to get control of NI. Nobody has been able to answer why the EU would want this.

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No - they just don't believe the UK when they say alternative arrangements are possible. If the UK are right, the backstop may never come into force.


But we all know they are spoofing - no such border exists anywhere.

Its in the UKs interests to come up with alternative arrangements so they can avoid the backstop. But if they can't avoid it, as it stands it will be permanent. Its hard to see them swallowing that. Ideally they should as should the DUP, but we are not dealing with rationale actors in the UK. They are liable to do anything including a hard Brexit.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looks like, after the noticable shirt in ERG stance the last number of days to softening about a delay, could be moving to a full 21 month postponement of Brexit

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/martin-howe-it-is-far-better-to-risk-extending-article-50-than-to-accept-mays-bad-deal.html

Basically saying that a 21 month delay is actually better than entering the transition period under the WA and they can simply crash out when they are more prepared.

I wonder what are the consequences of the UK doing something like that, basically using a delay to get around having to sign up to the WA?

The consequences are that the UK will probably find itself in a delay limbo for the next 20 years and the fact that the UK is still technically in the process of leaving the EU eventually becomes a pub quiz question.

ToBeFrank123

She lost the last vote on the current WA by 230.

So she needs at least 115 MPs to change sides if she wants to get it through as is. A big ask.

Water John

The only way it may pass is if Lb abstains on the vote that ties TM's Deal to a 2nd Ref. Not sure of the HOC procedures on the next votes.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

Any trade deal the UK negotiates while a member of the Customs Union must comply with the EU's external tariff and be so enforced.

I call that being unable to strike third party trade deals but if you think that isn't "quite" true we can agree to differ

Well yes. Because they can strike a third party trade deal that doesn't comply with SM rules. Of course all this depends on how you define 'third party', but as an example, the UK could do a deal with the US under current tariff rules, but which don't comply with SM rules and therefore import US beef for example. The US won't care, since they don't pay the tariffs and the UK could still be buying cheaper beef than they would from Ireland or the rest of the EU.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

They are liable to do anything including a hard Brexit.

Hard Brexit used to mean an orderly transition to WTO status. This would be very harmful for the UK, but perhaps doable. It would be a steady degradation of industry, agriculture and health sectors lasting many years.


But hard Brexit THIS MONTH with no transition is not doable in practice. The government wouldn't last until the summer, and the new govt would do literally anything for a trade deal with the EU, the backstop will be a mere detail.

Leroy42

I think the chances of the WA being passed are increasing but are still very long.

But if the WA gets voted down, I still don't see any way that the HoC will not vote down a No deal, this moving to a vote on the extension. At this point I expect TM to come out and say that the EU have informed her that a short extension will not achieve anything (as the WA has already been voted down) and this the only options left are 21 month delay or revoke.

This will cause much hand ringing and calls of betrayal, after which TM will come back to the house to say she has beaten down Tusk to agree to let them have a short extension on the basis that another vote for the WA is run and won.

She will then, with the upmost sincerity and look of angst, state that as the PM she cannot, indeed will not, allow the Great Union to be driven into economic harm which would result from no deal, and as such, although it pains her do it but great times calls for great leaders, she has no choice but to accept 21 delay. However, given the damage that the last two years have caused, and the burning injustices that the Tories want to deal with within society once an for all, including but not limited to the end of food banks, it is with a heavy heart that she sees no other option but to revoke A50.

Before dong so she will ask for the HoC but put aside their individual desires and vote for the WA for the good of the country. It is time to put the Great back into Great Britain!

She then promises the house that once the transition period is successfully negotiated she will step down and let whomever the people decide to lead the UK into the brave new dawn. She then leaves the House, clutching her handbang in one arm and shaking hands with supporters with the other hand with the booming strains of an a cappella rendition of Jerusalem coming from the combined forces of the Labour and Tory backbenchers.

First Up

Imreoir2 wrote:

The consequences are that the UK will probably find itself in a delay limbo for the next 20 years and the fact that the UK is still technically in the process of leaving the EU eventually becomes a pub quiz question.

prawnsambo wrote:

Well yes. Because they can strike a third party trade deal that doesn't comply with SM rules. Of course all this depends on how you define 'third party', but as an example, the UK could do a deal with the US under current tariff rules, but which don't comply with SM rules and therefore import US beef for example. The US won't care, since they don't pay the tariffs and the UK could still be buying cheaper beef than they would from Ireland or the rest of the EU.

Maybe inferior (hormone enriched) but not cheaper. The US currently has a duty free beef quota into the EU but the point is that those terms of trade are agreed between the EU and US. If those terms change, the UK as a member of the CU would be obliged to follow.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

Maybe inferior (hormone enriched) but not cheaper. The US currently has a duty free beef quota into the EU but the point is that those terms of trade are agreed between the EU and US. If those terms change, the UK as a member of the CU would be obliged to follow.

Afaik, those quotas are based on the EU's WTO schedule and not a FTA. The EU does not have a FTA with the US. There is a proposal to split the EU schedule pro-rata with the UK, but that proposal has stalled due to objections from other WTO members. In any event, the quota is for non-hormone injected beef, so that it is SM compliant. But the UK being outside the SM after transition and in the backstop, is entitled to deal with the US on hormone injected beef if it so wishes. As long as there is no change in tariffs, the CU remains intact. That's my reading of it.

Edit: Just on the cheaper or not issue, you're correct. As long as the UK is in the CU, there will be no tariffs from EU suppliers.

trellheim

Am I hearing a stealth-play 21 month extension ? Also see Geoffrey Cox calling out the Telegraph on obvious BS . Secret squirrel stuff going on but it has to move out into public soon

VinLieger

trellheim wrote: »

Am I hearing a stealth-play 21 month extension ? Also see Geoffrey Cox calling out the Telegraph on obvious BS . Secret squirrel stuff going on but it has to move out into public soon

I honestly find it hard to believe the ERG would be willing to risk a 21 month extension where it suddenly becomes very possible to hold a peoples vote or GE

demfad

Another Brexiteer type backing lengthy extension.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/martin-howe-it-is-far-better-to-risk-extending-article-50-than-to-accept-mays-bad-deal.html

Here is a summery of his summary:

• A long extension of 21 months would have the same practical result as the “implementation” period but with Representation
• Free to leave on 1st January 2021 without being trapped in the “backstop” Protocol.
• Financial liabilities during the 21 month extension would be the same as under the deal, but no obligations afterwards.
• Not be subject to indefinite ECJ jurisdiction after 2020.
• We would not be subject to EU state aid controls after 2020, nor to Commission and ECJ powers.
• Line up international trade deals to come into force from 1st January 2021
• Have more time to prepare for a “no deal” Brexit, enhancing our negotiating power with the EU and have more time to develop and deploy alternatives on Irish border.
  

lawred2

demfad wrote: »

Another Brexiteer type backing lengthy extension.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/martin-howe-it-is-far-better-to-risk-extending-article-50-than-to-accept-mays-bad-deal.html

Here is a summery of his summary:

• A long extension of 21 months would have the same practical result as the “implementation” period but with Representation
• Free to leave on 1st January 2021 without being trapped in the “backstop” Protocol.
• Financial liabilities during the 21 month extension would be the same as under the deal, but no obligations afterwards.
• Not be subject to indefinite ECJ jurisdiction after 2020.
• We would not be subject to EU state aid controls after 2020, nor to Commission and ECJ powers.
• Line up international trade deals to come into force from 1st January 2021
• Have more time to prepare for a “no deal” Brexit, enhancing our negotiating power with the EU and have more time to develop and deploy alternatives on Irish border.
  

yeah sure - the EU will agree to that alright. Shur with terms like 'trapped', 'no obligations' etc etc who would be thinking that such a plan was in bad faith?

prawnsambo

demfad wrote: »

Another Brexiteer type backing lengthy extension.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/martin-howe-it-is-far-better-to-risk-extending-article-50-than-to-accept-mays-bad-deal.html

Here is a summery of his summary:

• A long extension of 21 months would have the same practical result as the “implementation” period but with Representation
• Free to leave on 1st January 2021 without being trapped in the “backstop” Protocol.
• Financial liabilities during the 21 month extension would be the same as under the deal, but no obligations afterwards.
• Not be subject to indefinite ECJ jurisdiction after 2020.
• We would not be subject to EU state aid controls after 2020, nor to Commission and ECJ powers.
• Line up international trade deals to come into force from 1st January 2021
• Have more time to prepare for a “no deal” Brexit, enhancing our negotiating power with the EU and have more time to develop and deploy alternatives on Irish border.

Gas how they publish this stuff secure in the knowledge that nobody in the EU understands English and won't notice it. But nice to see that they intend to do something about the border in the time frame. I'm sure when they fail, it'll be a comfort to know that they tried.

Franz Von Peppercorn

prawnsambo wrote: »

Afaik, those quotas are based on the EU's WTO schedule and not a FTA. The EU does not have a FTA with the US. There is a proposal to split the EU schedule pro-rata with the UK, but that proposal has stalled due to objections from other WTO members. In any event, the quota is for non-hormone injected beef, so that it is SM compliant. But the UK being outside the SM after transition and in the backstop, is entitled to deal with the US on hormone injected beef if it so wishes. As long as there is no change in tariffs, the CU remains intact. That's my reading of it.

Edit: Just on the cheaper or not issue, you're correct. As long as the UK is in the CU, there will be no tariffs from EU suppliers.

Will they be advertising it as hormone injected beef?

If it isn’t cheaper people are going to be looking for British or EU flags.

Franz Von Peppercorn

prawnsambo wrote: »

Gas how they publish this stuff secure in the knowledge that nobody in the EU understands English and won't notice it. But nice to see that they intend to do something about the border in the time frame. I'm sure when they fail, it'll be a comfort to know that they tried.

The EU response should be quite simply : you’ve had two years to do all this, what are the chances that any of it works in the next 21 months.

CelticRambler

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Will they be advertising it as hormone injected beef?

If it isn’t cheaper people are going to be looking for British or EU flags.

I'm sure the majority of any such beef will end up as an ingredient in something else (ready-to-eat lasagne, for example) and it will be "cheaper" in the sense that it won't be more expensive because the processor will have made a business decision to buy and use cheap crap as ingredients on the grounds that the consumer of this type of product has always put price above quality.

A big "Made in Britain" slogan splashed across the front will distract from any the small print on the back.