Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

brickster69 wrote: »

Except that it has not been ratified. So in effect it is just a draft agreement.

For sure, but negotiations were concluded and the agreement signed off on. A change of government in the UK has no effect on the status of the agreement (using that analogy, the EU could claim that with a new EU Commission, the agreement has no legal status and they're scrapping it).

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

I honestly believe they are gearing up for an election and working hard to steal the Brexit Party's clothes. As long as they look as hard line as they possibly can (not talking to the EU, talk of proroguing parliament, no deal, etc.) and then being 'forced' into an election by a 'remainer' parliament so as to appear as the saviours of brexit and win a majority based on Tory voters and the leave constituency. Corbyn will also be sidelined by leave voters for fence-sitting.

After they win (assuming they do), they can do what they want.

The only wrinkle is that they will have to ask for an extension to hold the election. But that would pass Macron's test at least.

Not everyone in Britain is convinced by this theory (even though it seems plausible). You might be underestimating how deluded / dangerous Johnson and Cummings are.....what if they genuinely believe in No Deal and see any form of WA with a backstop as a huge negative?

Water John

Cox is still AG. Managed with some grovelling to hang onto his job.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

They seem to think it will give the UK some sort of leverage with the EU, if we are to believe the theory.

I'd imagine the effect of a hard Brexit on us will be maximised as leverage. The UK will just have to be careful to achieve that without appearing vindictive.

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

Not everyone in Britain is convinced by this theory (even though it seems plausible). You might be underestimating how deluded / dangerous Johnson and Cummings are.....what if they genuinely believe in No Deal and see any form of WA with a backstop as a huge negative?

They've a tiny majority. It's unsustainable as a government. Another by-election could sink them. It's actually possible that they mightn't even survive a Queen's speech at the opening of parliament on September 3rd. That actually has to go to a vote and could precipitate an election. They'd be mad to think they could survive long enough to get to brexit day. It's possible, but the best approach (imo) is to pre-empt things and call an election. Or better still, be forced into one.

Water John

Well Cummings is advancing the notion that Johnson would basically ignore a vote of no confidence, remain as PM and let 31st Oct pass.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/dominic-cummings-takes-swipe-at-greive-over-confidence-vote-plan

brickster69

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but negotiations were concluded and the agreement signed off on. A change of government in the UK has no effect on the status of the agreement (using that analogy, the EU could claim that with a new EU Commission, the agreement has no legal status and they're scrapping it).

This is the whole point of things. The WA had to be agreed by 4 parties as you know in order for it to be an agreement.

One of parties those rejected it.Not once but three times. So it is not an agreement because it has not been agreed.

If the EU parliament rejected it, are you saying the EU would / could not open up the agreement to make it acceptable for the EU Parliament to approve?

prawnsambo

Water John wrote: »

Well Cummings is advancing the notion that Johnson would basically ignore a vote of no confidence, remain as PM and let 31st Oct pass.

I doubt that will happen. But it may harden attitudes on the other side of the house to hold one. And of course it bolsters their brexity credentials.

FrancieBrady

brickster69 wrote: »

This is the whole point of things. The WA had to be agreed by 4 parties as you know in order for it to be an agreement.

One of parties those rejected it.

No they haven't. Not formally.

Seth Brundle

brickster69 wrote: »

The GFA is not legally binding because it say's that neither party can take the other to court if they break it.

Where in the GFA does it say that?
For your convenience, this is the GFA...

brickster69 wrote: »

Except that it has not been ratified. So in effect it is just a draft agreement.

It was ratified both in Northern Ireland and the Republic by popular vote on May 22

brickster69 wrote: »

This is the whole point of things. The WA had to be agreed by 4 parties as you know in order for it to be an agreement.

Where was it agreed as a precondition that these four needed to sign it in order to be valid?

brickster69

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but negotiations were concluded and the agreement signed off on.

But it was not formally signed. The PM could not sign it without permission from Parliament. It is still in draft form.

prawnsambo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It was ratified both in Northern Ireland and the Republic by popular vote on May 22

I think in this case he's talking about the WA, not the GFA.

fash

brickster69 wrote: »

The GFA is not legally binding because it say's that neither party can take the other to court if they break it.

The only legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism are those that cede territories from one to another. No modern day treaty between nations does not have a right for one party to be able to leave.

More lies: the EU treaties up until article 50 was inserted (at UK insistence and wording) into the Lisbon treaty had no unilateral exit mechanism. They are neither the GFA nor a treaty ceding territory.

brickster69

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Where in the GFA does it say that?
For your convenience, this is the GFA...

Yes, i did look at that but have seen it before somewhere. Will have a look later.


Where was it agreed as a precondition that these four needed to sign it in order to be valid?

They don't need to sign it just approve it. Which one has not done.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

More lies: the EU treaties up until article 50 was inserted (at UK insistence and wording) into the Lisbon treaty had no unilateral exit mechanism. They are neither the GFA nor a treaty ceding territory.

Well I think it was always possible for sovereign countries to leave the EU. Lisbon merely formulated a mechanism for them to do so and put a time limit on negotiations.

Seth Brundle

brickster69 wrote: »

They don't need to sign it just approve it. Which one has not done.

Yeah - thought you were referring to GFA.
Finding it hard to multitask with boards competing against the 200 urgent things here in work.

brickster69

fash wrote: »

More lies: the EU treaties up until article 50 was inserted (at UK insistence and wording) into the Lisbon treaty had no unilateral exit mechanism. They are neither the GFA nor a treaty ceding territory.

How did Greenland leave then ?

Quin_Dub

prawnsambo wrote: »

They've a tiny majority. It's unsustainable as a government. Another by-election could sink them. It's actually possible that they mightn't even survive a Queen's speech at the opening of parliament on September 3rd. That actually has to go to a vote and could precipitate an election. They'd be mad to think they could survive long enough to get to brexit day. It's possible, but the best approach (imo) is to pre-empt things and call an election. Or better still, be forced into one.

Might not even need that -

A Conservative MP has suggested he will "spend the summer" deciding whether to defect to the Liberal Democrats due to his opposition to a no-deal Brexit.

Dr Phillip Lee, who supports a second EU referendum, revealed he feels "politically homeless" following the election of Boris Johnson as Tory leader.

Given the recent byelection loss all it takes is 1 to jump ship. They might even convince a high profile one like Hammond to cross the commons floor.

Strazdas

brickster69 wrote: »

But it was not formally signed. The PM could not sign it without permission from Parliament. It is still in draft form.

But with no onus or requirement on the EU to reopen negotiations. The WA talks ended in November 2018. The EU are entitled to say it's this WA or nothing. Arguments and red lines at the UK end are not their problem.....the WA kept changing throughout the 18 month negotiation because of Britain's self imposed red lines.

Quin_Dub

Strazdas wrote: »

But with no onus or requirement on the EU to reopen negotiations. The WA talks ended in November 2018. The EU are entitled to say it's this WA or nothing. Arguments and red lines at the UK end are not their problem.....the WA kept changing throughout the 18 month negotiation because of Britain's self imposed red lines.

This is the central point.

The UK are the ones leaving , the UK are the ones that have set the terms of how they want to leave.

The EU have merely responded and said "Ok , if those are the terms under which you want to leave , then these are the things we need to have to ensure we are not damaged by your exit".

It is entirely up to the UK to address those concerns either by accepting the conditions that the EU are requesting or altering the manner they wish to exit.

If they cannot do either of those things then their choice is simple , leave without any special terms or don't leave.

ambro25

brickster69 wrote: »

But it was not formally signed. The PM could not sign it without permission from Parliament. It is still in draft form.

There is a difference between a draft agreement, a signed agreement, and a ratified agreement. You appear to be confusing them all. Allow me.

The withdrawal agreement ceased to be a 'draft' when the EU and Theresa May signed it (technically, even before that: the very moment the last of the 2 parties at the table, signified 100% agreement about the then-latest draft; whereby the commonly-approved draft is then be 'cleaned' and signed).

Theresa May signed the WA, can't remember if it was with Barnier when it was concluded, or at the next European Council meeting. End November 2018, at any rate.

But as you correctly note, under UK constitutional principles it had to be ratified by the HoC to become binding on the UK (because binding the UK is a sovereignty matter, and in the UK, sovereignty vests in the HoC).

It was not ratified, due to internal UK politics. Nothing to do with the EU27. The UK governement has not changed since 2017, neither have the material facts underlying the WA (ie respective UK & EU red lines framing the 2017-18 negotiations and conclusions), so the EU27 is perfectly justified to 'camp' on the WA as is, in both law and equity.

If your/the UK position is that the backstop is now a red line, then that is a new UK red line asking a concession from EU and, in negotiations, it's not up to the party with the strongest hand (the EU, by an intergalactic mile in the Brexit context) to accomodate and make concessions to the empty-handed party (the UK): if the UK sets a new red line, it's for the UK to also propose what they offer as a counterpart. As they refuse to do so, they should actually consider themselves lucky that the EU has kept the WA on the table until Halloween.

I frequently manage and negotiate settlements of IP conflicts, and let me tell you that, in analogous circumstances (I'm "the EU", the infringer with a business-closing level of clear-cut liability is "the UK"), I'd have tore them a new one, and rode it for all it's worth, the morning after they came out with the "WA dead, not talking to ya til you drop backstop" line (otherwise known in context as: so we're done with the pre-action protocol, file/seal/serve particulars of claim suit and prelim injunction, see you in court, by the way I'm suing each of your directors personally too).

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think there's harm in knowing that moderates in the UK are trying their best to resolve problems.

Unfortunatly, they seem to think that the way to resolve the "basic contradiction" of a permenant backstop is for the EU to ignore the problems the backstop seeks to resolve, problems created by the UK's red lines, rather than the UK working within its obligation to NI and not seeking to create those problems in the first place by removing some or all of its red lines.

Brexit is the UK's decision, the imposition of red lines is the UK's decision. The backstop is the way to reslove the problems created by the UK's decisions. You don't get to call the instrument that resolves these problems, "the problem" and seek to have it removed while ignoring the problems the instrument was created to resolve.

Leroy42

Why are the likes of Gove, Davis and Johnson not coming under massive pressure from the media for essentially accepting that the EU holds all the cards?

It seems perfectly acceptable that Goves comes out on national TV and claims that the EU are being mean. Foster in the North is claiming Leo is being terribly mean spirited about the whole thing.

Quite a climb down from the promise that the UK would be striding the globe leading trade talks with whomever they choose.

Surely the UK should be questioning the future with these failures in place?

Strazdas

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the central point.

The UK are the ones leaving , the UK are the ones that have set the terms of how they want to leave.

The EU have merely responded and said "Ok , if those are the terms under which you want to leave , then these are the things we need to have to ensure we are not damaged by your exit".

It is entirely up to the UK to address those concerns either by accepting the conditions that the EU are requesting or altering the manner they wish to exit.

If they cannot do either of those things then their choice is simple , leave without any special terms or don't leave.

Indeed, all the UK have done after November 2018 is to keep moving the goalposts - and it's very likely they would do so again if negotiations reopened.

Their request to reopen talks is not a reasonable one. They have been slipping and sliding and changing the Brexit narrative almost on a daily basis for the last two years and don't appear to be acting in good faith.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are the likes of Gove, Davis and Johnson not coming under massive pressure from the media for essentially accepting that the EU holds all the cards?

It seems perfectly acceptable that Goves comes out on national TV and claims that the EU are being mean. Foster in the North is claiming Leo is being terribly mean spirited about the whole thing.

Quite a climb down from the promise that the UK would be striding the globe leading trade talks with whomever they choose.

Surely the UK should be questioning the future with these failures in place?

Because the media is rabidly in favor of Brexit. Anything from the BBC, Guardian, Economist, FT, etc which doesn't affirm that Brexit will be unicorns and rainbows will just be derided as fake news.

Notice how the narrative shifted from Brexit being amazing to a duty that must be followed because people voted for it. Now we're at the stage where the Brexit press is incessantly playing the victim card. So much for buccaneering, global Britain...

brickster69

ambro25 wrote: »

There is a difference between a draft agreement, a signed agreement, and a ratified agreement. You appear to be confusing them all. Allow me.

The withdrawal agreement ceased to be a 'draft' when the EU and Theresa May signed it (technically, even before that: the very moment the last of the 2 parties at the table, signified 100% agreement about the then-latest draft; whereby the commonly-approved draft is then be 'cleaned' and signed).

Theresa May signed the WA. But as you correctly note, under UK constitutional principles it had to be ratified by the HoC to become binding on the UK. It was not ratified, due to internal UK politics. Nothing to fo with the EU27.

Ambro. The withdrawal agreement is dead. It has been rejected 3 times by a remain majority parliament. No good saying sign it or else !

Looks like the EU have to come out and say negotiations have failed and are finished in that case.

ancapailldorcha

brickster69 wrote: »

Ambro. The withdrawal agreement is dead. It has been rejected 3 times by a remain majority parliament. No good saying sign it or else !

Looks like the EU have to come out and say negotiations have failed and are finished in that case.

Why would the EU say this? They negotiated the deal with the UK and now the UK is rejected the deal because of the backstop they suggested. All the EU can do now is wait while the UK continues to squabble with and tear at itself until the inevitable request for an extension.

BluePlanet

brickster69 wrote: »

Ambro. The withdrawal agreement is dead. It has been rejected 3 times by a remain majority parliament. No good saying sign it or else !

Looks like the EU have to come out and say negotiations have failed and are finished in that case.

Why don't the UK just ask the EU to remove it's signature from the Agreement to Extend Brexit?

If they disagree with the content of that Agreement than they should withdraw.
In reality, they want to cherry pick the bits they want from that agreement also.
They want to keep it's expiration date of Oct 31.

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

Probably doing a report to explain to the people exactly why the worlds first legally binding Treaty which does not allow either party to unilaterally leave it is a non starter.

This is nonsence. There is nothing in the WA that prevents either party from walking away, but like any treaty walking away means you stop enjoying the benefits of the treaty provisions. The UK wants to walk away from a critical part of the treaty while still enjoying the other provisions of the treaty, which is obviously a non-starter.

Quin_Dub

brickster69 wrote: »

Ambro. The withdrawal agreement is dead. It has been rejected 3 times by a remain majority parliament. No good saying sign it or else !

Looks like the EU have to come out and say negotiations have failed and are finished in that case.

They've been very clear that negotiations are finished , they've been saying that for months.

Bear in mind - 2 teams of negotiators came together and thrashed out a deal , the EU team then managed to get 27 different governments to agree to the deal.

The UK team couldn't even get their own party to agree to what they came back with.

The failure here is down to the UK , not the EU.

If the UK can't accept the terms , then they are free to leave whenever they want.

The EU have absolutely zero obligation to re-open anything for the UK - Certainly not in the absence of any change from the UK.