UKC

Apologies for yet another brexit thread...

One thing that has puzzled me in all the discussions is that the "deal" is not really a deal.  It is a transition agreement to help smooth the path whilst the real deal in terms of the UK's long term future relationship with the EU is negotiated.  Whilst this may be just semantics my view is that this point is lost on the vast majority of the UK population who, I suspect, think that the current "deal" is the b all and end all of it.  I also suspect many MPs do not understand this.  In recent weeks the press and some MPs when interviewed have started to make it clear that we are still only really at the start of the process.  I am really surprised this has not been made clearer and much earlier. 

Whilst the withdrawal agreement will have short term impact is it really that important in the long term?  Personally I think it will have some impact but perhaps not as much as all the fuss around it would merit (that is not to say the impact on individuals though will not be significant and clearly that is a big issue).

When people fully start to realise how little of the actual process we have got through I wonder what the reaction will be?  I also wonder how people will react when the final long term negotiated settlement will most probably be different from the withdrawal agreement terms.  I am sure the final settlement will annoy one side or the other (most probably both) as they thought the "deal" was the end of it.  Of course MPs are already positioning for influence over the future deal and any change in PM would have a massive impact.

The final point then is why has so much time been wasted on an interim withdrawal agreement without any real thought for the final future long term relationship?  Whilst I accept the withdrawal agreement is no doubt trying to set at least some of the parameters for the future agreement (hence why MPs on each side are fighting so hard for their approach) it is still just an interim measure.  If we are to believe our MPs then surely they could have agreed the final long term agreement in the last 3 years (I am not sure I believe this last point).  They think they can negotiate the long term settlement in the next 2 years so why could they not have done it in the last 3?

I think the answer is that few Brexiters have a clue what they really want, and those that do are at odds with each other. It's mostly a pile of emotions rather than realistic plans, and curiously enough, full of demands to keep some of the benefits of being in Europe. Because the whole thing makes so little sense, it's impossible to draw up anything that anyone can agree to.

Something like that.

The EU refused to do anything other than negotiate a withdrawal arrangement, that’s why nothing else has been done.  I’d hope and expect that all MPs are aware of that.

Imagine how the actual trade deal discussions are going to go after the last 2 years. We are a f*cking shambles. We cannot even agree a deal to discuss a deal. 

I'm sure they are.  But even that has been beyond the current government.  Sad!

You didn't have to agree to the timetable, leaving wirh no negotiation on anything was always an option.

How are you supposed to negotiate a future arrangement if you don't know the starting position? They are only following the provisions of article 50 (although i am also willing to bet that some off the record conversations have been taking place wrt future relations.........).

No need to worry, because once the WA is sorted, "this will be the easiest trade deal in history", right?

What a bunch of ingrates they are. We tell them to p1ss off and they don't do what we want. Honestly it's as if there were more of them, with a much bigger combined economy, and grown ups in charge. We won 2 world wars and one world cup, how dare they forget that!

A few observations on that one.

1) Nothing wrong with what the EU has insisted on.

2) The WA could have been sorted ages ago, it's the UK government who've dragged it out, mostly down to May pandering to the loonier Brexiteers.

3) It has now been demonstrated that the EU has the power in these negotiations, which was always going to be the case given the size of the UK/EU economies. The bullshit of the BMW/Prosecco brigade has been well and truly exposed.

The central problem is that we had a referendum on leaving the EU without defining what leaving the EU would mean.    The UK has been unable to move forward in negotiations because it is unable to define its position.  It can't define its position because there is far more support for Remain than any fully defined version of Leave.    We haven't been negotiating with the EU or even trying to build a consensus within the country, the cabinet has been negotiating with itself and the DUP and finding that so difficult it has completely ignored every other stakeholder.   A classic example being asking for an extension to 30th June rather than thinking about the calendar for EU elections.

The solution is to come clean, admit the referendum question was flawed and that the mandate is now nearly three years old and probably no longer reflects current opinion.  Revoke Article 50 to take the time pressure off and start a long term process to rework and modernise the UK political system.    

Interesting to see two Dislikes on my posting of 10:08. They either (perhaps sincerely) believe the Brexit message is unified, which is untrue, or they actually like the chaos and confusion. 

It's simple.  What will need to be negotiated is a treaty between the 27-member EU and an external country (UK).  At the moment, the EU comprises 28 members, including UK, and there is no external country with whom they can negotiate.

Very well said.

I believe that the referendum should never have been called. Personally, I know I do not have the expertise to judge on these matters - that's why we elect politicians. Why do we bother electing them if they abdicate their duty to make policy decisions? Why waste money (and set a dangerous precedent) on any referendum in which most people do not have a sufficient understanding to judge the matter adequately?

I also do not agree that referendums were necessary in the early 1970s. Both the UK and Ireland had parliaments that voted to enter the (then) EEC in the early 1970s, so why bother?

I didn’t agree to anything .  TM didn’t need to agree their terms, no, but either way, there was no way to leave with a deal negotiated because they wouldn’t negotiate one (if you believe them that is).  We wasted all this time because they wouldn’t use the time to do anything else.

If you say so.  Certainly they’re within their rights to do as they like.

Whenever it was sorted out a deal would still not have been arranged - they refused to.  Their choice.

It’s been demonstrated that May is a waste of space, that’s for sure.  No one knows what would have happened with someone else in charge.

You don’t think people can plan in advance?

Of course.  And they have, obviously.  But there can't be post-Brexit agreement until there is a Brexit.

There could be a draft that you just need to sign the minute after we leave, if the EU had been willing to do that.  They weren’t.

It's not a question of being willing.  It's just how the legal and procedural machinery works. 

It's exactly the sort of thing that Theresa May and much of the British political establishment just don't seem to get. And some who do chose to misrepresent it.

Which is exactly why we are in the mess we are.

When you are the group that design the law and procedure, and can change it should you choose, that’s not an answer that makes sense.  Besides, they have made some arrangements for if we leave with no deal so you’re wrong that it can’t be done, they’ve done it.

(a) You seem to want the club to change its rules for the benefit of one member who is leaving.

(b) The current negotiations are being held under the principles of Art 50, which applies to an existing member leaving.  Any future negotiations will be held under whichever Article of the TFEU it is that relates to trading relations with non-EU countries.  Which doesn't apply until we have left.

To have not agreed a future working relationship after all this time is perhaps understandable given the required sequencing, although to be fair to the EU they agreed to a withdrawal proposal with the PM quite some time ago, so it wasn't their fault the future relationship discussions could not have been going on for quite some time already.

To have not agreed a withdrawal agreement after all this time is either gross incompetence or speaks of an impossibility to get even the representatives of the fraudulent Leave vote to agree on anything.

I’m not saying I want anything, just saying that it’s a choice they’ve made.

Ok...so?  Under what mechanism are they putting measures in place to deal with “no deal”?

Difficult to see how putting measures in place to avoid the known reality of WTO terms, and the known implications of the UK defaulting on its membership obligations, can be described as negotiating new trading relations.

I think you are confused by a number of issues.

This has been raised  by politicians from various sides, eg recently Beckett in Question Time and Farage the other night. 
Unfortunately attention has been focused mainly on the Irish border issue and much of the proposed agreement has gone under the public's radar.
Under WTO we may end up negotiating a deal with the EU in a similar way to that following a May's agreement but from a position of greater economic disadvantage....also the EU would certainly want to recover some of the divorce fee (to which they may well have a legal entitlement).
Despite most MPs voting against No Deal we may well be drifting towards it by default, probably engineered. There does seem to be an increasing desire among people to just get it over with even if it means no deal (seems a bit like egging on one's own firing squad).
I still hope for a long extension/rescind 50 and referendum on Leave/Deal/Remain with second preference vote, though seems unlikely with many MPs and even former Remainers in the electorate against it. Politicians can't decide so let the people do so, and even if the result was for No Deal I would then accept it , knowing that a CURRENT majority had made the decision. In fact it might turn out less divisive in the long term.

The EU said they would not negotiate the future relationship until we had agreed the withdrawal deal, and told us what the terms of a withdrawal agreement (WA) would be.

We could have drawn up a WA in a few months, and got on with future trade negotiations - instead we ran down the clock arguing that we'd like a different WA than was on offer. 

The WA on the table now is pretty much what the EU told us it would be from the start. It's not the EU's fault we spent the last couple of years playing games, and pretending we held all the cards. We've spaffed our negotiating time up the wall on delusions of grandeur and now we're begging the EU for more time to sort our shit out.

The EU could have chosen to negotiate the future trade deal in parallel with withdrawal...and I think that’s what the U.K. government originally asked for, but were turned down. Which suggests the EU didn’t think it was in their interests to declare their position too early.

When negotiations on the future deal eventually start, the U.K. will be in an even weaker negotiating position than we currently are, (if that were possible!), having left the “club” and paid our final dues.

I’d expect the EU to push for a punitive deal, to ensure that no other countries are tempted to follow us out. If we want broadly similar access to EU markets as we currently enjoy, we can expect to end up paying the same as we currently do in fees, but with no influence on the “rules” of the club.

To rub salt into the wound, we may also be forced to give up some of the advantages our new-found freedom (sic) has won; I think Macron has already said that access to UK waters for French fishing boats would be an essential part of any trade deal. Other national leaders will no doubt have their own shopping lists as well; “Yes, you have complete control over your borders. But if you want to trade with us, then you need to allow 100,000 Polish plumbers to work in your country”😂

Would be good to hear what such freedoms look like in practice. I'm struggling to see them.

I think there's far too much emotive talk of punishment. The EU will seek the best deal for their interests just as they have always done.

For decades, we have benefited from being part of that large and powerful negotiating block. Now we've decided we want to be on the receiving end.

The result of that won't be punishment, it's just the natural consequence of choosing to give up power and influence.