How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 5)

[Coolbanana]

PH Leave....

It appears that a majority of you do support a full Leave; going out on WTO if the EU does not offer a very favourable deal and having confidence in the Captains of Industry and the Government to overcome the obstacles to full independence from the EU and great success eventually. You all seem satisfied that the unquantified 'period of pain' will be short-lived and manageable for the greater goal.

We get that. Your tick on the Ballot paper provides for that. No question.

But...yes, there is a huge but...you have to look at the Referendum Campaigns in context and understand why large groups of people voted. I would definitely suggest the larger number of Leavers voted for similar reasons to PH Leavers and were happy with what I typed above to happen.

However, we cannot now ignore the fact that another group of Leavers expected a good deal and did not want to crash out completely on WTO and who did not expect nor desire a 'period of pain' nor have the same level of confidence that all will ultimately be better.

We have all agreed here that the Campaigns from both sides were terrible. The sad fallout from that, is while there will be a majority of voters still very comfortable with their original vote from both Leave and Remain camps, there will be a large group of affected individuals who feel hoodwinked and deceived. They are not on track to get what they believed would happen.

So the question now, is how does the UK appease this group?

Leavers who are content with WTO etc are obviously wanting their fellow Leavers to join the faith and have confidence in a bold future sans EU ties. Remainers are campaigning to woo those disgruntled folks towards the relative 'safety' of staying in the EU.

TM meanwhile, has made the decision that her deal is the compromise needed for all Leavers, Remainers and the group in-between. Like many of you, I am amazed that she is proving so resilient to being ousted thus far.

My feeling has been all along that Leavers will split - as I believe they are, albeit with a strong majority of them happy with No Deal, WTO - and Remainers will win their campaign towards getting a 2nd Referendum and managing to get enough new votes on side to win overall.

TM is looking a bit Teflon though. There is a very real danger her deal will win overall and that would not only kick the can down the road a little further, it leads to EU Lite at the end. EU Lite is not a win for anyone in the UK in my humble opinion. You are either in or out.

As we keep saying, interesting days....

[Crackie]

Ghibli said:

mx5nut said:

Prior to that, any suggestion we could end up with no deal was called "Project Fear'.

And we are now told that no deal is what they voted for.

Who has said that and where? Link please.

[loafer123]

PurpleMoonlight said:

loafer123 said:

On point 1, I don’t understand your point...it has to be defined, as 20XX is clearly yet to be filled in and can’t be left in.

The XX means it is to be agreed in the future so as to provide maximum flexibility. If not agreed if needed the backstop would kick in.

My understanding was that it would have to be filled in before any agreement is signed.

Otherwise it is very odd legal drafting...it would make much more sense for the extension to be “for a further term to be agreed between the parties”.

[PurpleMoonlight]

loafer123 said:

My understanding was that it would have to be filled in before any agreement is signed.

Otherwise it is very odd legal drafting...it would make much more sense for the extension to be “for a further term to be agreed between the parties”.

I don't believe so.

The extension is by agreement of the joint Committee.

[loafer123]

PurpleMoonlight said:

I don't believe so.

The extension is by agreement of the joint Committee.

Fair enough.

If you are correct, it is even more reason to ensure the progression to later stages (backstop and permenant FTA) are properly constituted, rather than have an EU veto and no break mechanism, otherwise the interests of the parties are woefully misaligned.

[soupdragon1]

p1stonhead said:

soupdragon1 said:

loafer123 said:

Constructive replies only, please....


Listening to Today this morning, 5 Cabinet Ministers are seeking to drive changes to make the agreement acceptable.

Notwithstanding resistance from the EU, what is everyone’s view on changes that would make it acceptable?

I would suggest;

1 Defining the maximum extension to the Transition Period (20XX)

2 Making the arbitration truly independent by reference to an internationally recognised body

3 Including a unilateral exit clause to the Backstop - it is ludicrous not to have one

4 Including the acceptance in the Political Declaration of technology as a solution to the Irish border issue, with reference to some international measures of success

5 Including, in the Political Declaration, the route by which we can ensure we are able to do our own trade deals



Views welcome...

I think point 1 was very much pushed for, but has been met with a brick wall from the EU. I can't see them moving on it.

Point 2 is possible perhaps

Point 3, another EU brick wall that won't move I think

Point 4 - due to Irish stance, and how that's received in Ireland, no matter how good the solution, I can't see any movement at all...the GFA card will continue to be played any time that gets mentioned

I think those cabinet members need to refresh themselves on the past 2 years of negotiations. They want to explore paths that have already been explored and won't lead to anything, except more time wasted and hard Brexit risk increases further. I honestly think T May has got as good as we'll get, so we just need to decide if we proceed with it, or take the other directions, no deal etc.

The GFA will trump everything.

Basically, nothing can ever change in Ireland from now and that’s the exact reason we are where we are.

Oh and the DUP won’t accept the border in the Irish Sea.

The other points are secondary;

It’s;

Border in Ireland. Nope
Border in the Sea. Nope.
Whole UK in C.U. Nope.
Or no Brexit. Nope.

Nothing will move until one of the above do.

And here's the rub, DUP are under home pressure to accept the Irish Sea border backstop. They HATE the idea, but NI welcomes it. Most notably the Ulster farmers union, who are asking DUP to reconsider their stance. The farmers unions are HUGE local DUP supporters, so this is very significant. DUP took a very strong stance against T May in the HOC but at this point, it's just bluster, hoping for others to share that opinion and do the dirty work for them (ie, vote against it)
For the DUP to 'actually' vote against it, is another matter entirely. People assume they will vote against it, but in doing so, that comes with very high risk of their electorate turning their back on them.
I'll expand on this later when I've got more time, but looking underneath the surface, there is a lot more to the DUP position than meets he eye.

[PurpleMoonlight]

loafer123 said:

Fair enough.

If you are correct, it is even more reason to ensure the progression to later stages (backstop and permenant FTA) are properly constituted, rather than have an EU veto and no break mechanism, otherwise the interests of the parties are woefully misaligned.

Or a UK veto.

[psi310398]

loafer123 said:

It might help if you looked up the definition of “constructive”...

Don't bother, he's just trolling again.

[psi310398]

soupdragon1 said:

And here's the rub, DUP are under home pressure to accept the Irish Sea border backstop. They HATE the idea, but NI welcomes it. Most notably the Ulster farmers union, who are asking DUP to reconsider their stance. The farmers unions are HUGE local DUP supporters, so this is very significant. DUP took a very strong stance against T May in the HOC but at this point, it's just bluster, hoping for others to share that opinion and do the dirty work for them (ie, vote against it)
For the DUP to 'actually' vote against it, is another matter entirely. People assume they will vote against it, but in doing so, that comes with very high risk of their electorate turning their back on them.
I'll expand on this later when I've got more time, but looking underneath the surface, there is a lot more to the DUP position than meets he eye.

The vested interests might well be anti, but if this is anywhere near accurate, the actual people with votes might well think very differently:

https://brexitcentral.com/irish-protocol-withdrawa...

Especially if, after all, the poor sods end up with a full customs border...

[psi310398]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The XX means it is to be agreed in the future so as to provide maximum flexibility. If not agreed if needed, the backstop would kick in.

Interestingly, not 2X or 3X though!

It is almost as if they are expecting us to be tied in to them until at least 9X!

[lowndes]

loafer123 said:

Constructive replies only, please....


Listening to Today this morning, 5 Cabinet Ministers are seeking to drive changes to make the agreement acceptable.

Notwithstanding resistance from the EU, what is everyone’s view on changes that would make it acceptable?

I would suggest;

1 Defining the maximum extension to the Transition Period (20XX)

2 Making the arbitration truly independent by reference to an internationally recognised body

3 Including a unilateral exit clause to the Backstop - it is ludicrous not to have one

4 Including the acceptance in the Political Declaration of technology as a solution to the Irish border issue, with reference to some international measures of success

5 Including, in the Political Declaration, the route by which we can ensure we are able to do our own trade deals



Views welcome...

1. I think the Transition Period is too short so rather than having a mechanism to extend I would fix it at 5 years from exit with no mechanism to extend.

3. Unilateral exit from the Backstop or a maximum period of 10 years, either way gives certainty.

4. The Political Declaration is a minefield and I would delete it in its entirety. By all means let each side set out its objectives separately but as drafted the PDA has the potential to create many more problems than it solves.

[JagLover]

loafer123 said:

Constructive replies only, please....


Listening to Today this morning, 5 Cabinet Ministers are seeking to drive changes to make the agreement acceptable.

Notwithstanding resistance from the EU, what is everyone’s view on changes that would make it acceptable?

I would suggest;

1 Defining the maximum extension to the Transition Period (20XX)

2 Making the arbitration truly independent by reference to an internationally recognised body

3 Including a unilateral exit clause to the Backstop - it is ludicrous not to have one

4 Including the acceptance in the Political Declaration of technology as a solution to the Irish border issue, with reference to some international measures of success

5 Including, in the Political Declaration, the route by which we can ensure we are able to do our own trade deals



Views welcome...

Good post

It has been clear for a long time, soon after the UK government accepted the sequencing of talks in fact, that all we were going to end up with in the FTA is something that merely safeguarded the EUs trade surplus in goods, with anything else at unacceptable cost. So I am not bothered that any talk of the future relationship is in a non legally binding political agreement.

In terms of the actual withdrawal agreement it contains many unpalatable elements but would be worth it, IMO, if it included point 3. On a proper basis so to have, say, with a year's notice either party could terminate all arrangements unilaterally and we would trade on WTO terms thereafter.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Fittster said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

mx5nut said:

Yes, it would.

So it's the responsibility of our government and parliament to pick from those options based on which would be least damaging for the country.

Nope, it is to follow it and their last election manifesto. This deal does not do that.

manifesto aren't enforceable.

They are at the next vote.

[bitchstewie]

The Dangerous Elk said:

They are at the next vote.

They really aren't.

They're punishable by voting for someone else, but grim reality is in this country if you're Conservative or Labour you can basically lie and people will vote for you regardless.

The worse that will happen is you'll get voted out... for a bit.

[psi310398]

Telegraph reports on a letter signed by hundreds of businesses urging MPs to vote down the deal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/16/le...

It seems that at least some representatives of the biggest source of employment in the UK do not agree with the chorus from big business...

[loafer123]

lowndes said:

1. I think the Transition Period is too short so rather than having a mechanism to extend I would fix it at 5 years from exit with no mechanism to extend.

3. Unilateral exit from the Backstop or a maximum period of 10 years, either way gives certainty.

4. The Political Declaration is a minefield and I would delete it in its entirety. By all means let each side set out its objectives separately but as drafted the PDA has the potential to create many more problems than it solves.

Very interesting.

As a stripped down version of the current proposal, I think that would work.

[Digga]

Coolbanana said:

PH Leave....

It appears that a majority of you do support a full Leave; going out on WTO if the EU does not offer a very favourable deal and having confidence in the Captains of Industry and the Government to overcome the obstacles to full independence from the EU and great success eventually. You all seem satisfied that the unquantified 'period of pain' will be short-lived and manageable for the greater goal.

We get that. Your tick on the Ballot paper provides for that. No question.

But...yes, there is a huge but...you have to look at the Referendum Campaigns in context and understand why large groups of people voted. I would definitely suggest the larger number of Leavers voted for similar reasons to PH Leavers and were happy with what I typed above to happen.

However, we cannot now ignore the fact that another group of Leavers expected a good deal and did not want to crash out completely on WTO and who did not expect nor desire a 'period of pain' nor have the same level of confidence that all will ultimately be better.

We have all agreed here that the Campaigns from both sides were terrible. The sad fallout from that, is while there will be a majority of voters still very comfortable with their original vote from both Leave and Remain camps, there will be a large group of affected individuals who feel hoodwinked and deceived. They are not on track to get what they believed would happen.

So the question now, is how does the UK appease this group?

Leavers who are content with WTO etc are obviously wanting their fellow Leavers to join the faith and have confidence in a bold future sans EU ties. Remainers are campaigning to woo those disgruntled folks towards the relative 'safety' of staying in the EU.

TM meanwhile, has made the decision that her deal is the compromise needed for all Leavers, Remainers and the group in-between. Like many of you, I am amazed that she is proving so resilient to being ousted thus far.

My feeling has been all along that Leavers will split - as I believe they are, albeit with a strong majority of them happy with No Deal, WTO - and Remainers will win their campaign towards getting a 2nd Referendum and managing to get enough new votes on side to win overall.

TM is looking a bit Teflon though. There is a very real danger her deal will win overall and that would not only kick the can down the road a little further, it leads to EU Lite at the end. EU Lite is not a win for anyone in the UK in my humble opinion. You are either in or out.

As we keep saying, interesting days....

Another good post. Have you switched medications?

It is interesting, as others here now say, that ministers seem to have switched to implicitly backing TM's deal, whilst frantically working away to get it amended. A pragmatic approach IMHO.

As for what 'big business' says, I think we all know they have their own agenda which aligns with neither he economies or the people's best interests. We all understand how and why they lobby - and why it is worth their while to expend so much capital on it.

[Garvin]

The UK’s future prosperity is now in the hands of Parliament which, quite frankly, Leavers wanted. Parliament, I believe, has two options - either vote for or against TM’s deal.

Parliament vote for it and that is that! We are then at the mercy of the EU and whether they will frustrate future agreements to effectively ‘lock’ the UK in forever and a day with little influence etc. The potential vessel state option! The next GE will be interesting as a lot of MPs will surely be looking over their shoulders if things do not go well.

Parliament vote it down. Does that mean ‘no deal’? Personally I think not. The EU have stated loudly that there is no more negotiation but they would say that wouldn’t they before any vote. With Parliament effectively throwing out the deal it would prove the intransigence of the EU beyond a shadow of a doubt if they would not talk further and pressure would surely mount for them to drop their requirement to be able to prevent UK leaving the CU etc. if the further relationship deal couldn’t be agreed. However, the EU could dig their heels in and If they do not talk further then ‘no deal’ it is and the last GE manifesto promise will be achieved together with the wishes of the Leavers. Politicians on both sides of the channel may then end up looking over their shoulders.

[Murph7355]

loafer123 said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

I don't believe so.

The extension is by agreement of the joint Committee.

Fair enough.

If you are correct, it is even more reason to ensure the progression to later stages (backstop and permenant FTA) are properly constituted, rather than have an EU veto and no break mechanism, otherwise the interests of the parties are woefully misaligned.

The Joint Committee piece is essentially can kicking.

As far as I've read in the document there is absolutely no detail on the criteria that will be used to judge the appropriateness of any request to leave the backstop (with balance - if either side requests it....though frankly I cannot see why on earth the EU would as the backstop gives them exactly what they want).

These are fudges inserted into contracts when you cannot, for whatever reason, agree on a proper clause ahead of signature and there is believed to be pressure to sign to a deadline. My belief of what this would end up with in practice is years of debate within the Joint Committee about whether a request or the refusal of it was reasonable or not. Lawyers will make a pot of cash, we'll be left in the backstop for the duration with relations increasingly frosty.

My cynicism suggests that both parties are fully aware of some of the reasons that will be thrown on the table as they will be identical to what cannot be agreed right now - "Irish Border" (load of old bks, but as it keeps being uttered one day people will just believe it to be true) and "integrity of the EU SM/CU". So we will be in the same position with one exception - we will be locked into the backstop.

If they sort that clause out I'd be more comfortable to this being signed up to. But they won't.

We should be focusing on sorting the essential elements that need to continue, and then exit on WTO. And then work the other way from there - people voted to leave, not to be locked in (ie remain).

[Kermit power]

Dindoit said:

Does the agreement fulfil the obligations set out in the referendum?

A helpful reminder in case people have forgotten.

Yes. Absolutely, and in every respect.

This was always going to be the problem, as soon as we entrusted such a complex question to such a stupidly fking simple question. Anything which results in the UK no longer appearing in the list of EU member states meets the obligations set out in the referendum.

Does it meet what people thought they were voting for (or even against)? In some cases maybe it does! I suspect in the vast majority it doesn't, but then the referendum never actually told us what we were voting for, so you're back to the conclusion that turning such a complex situation into such a simplistic process was barking fking mental!