Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
How would you have handled the parliamentary situation?
Included a commitment to whatever deal is agreed with the Art50 triggering legislation? That would avoid the "undermining" of the referendum via parliament.
The irish process for referenda requires the referendum to be on the legislation change, generally.
M.
Included a commitment to whatever deal is agreed with the Art50 triggering legislation? That would avoid the "undermining" of the referendum via parliament.
The irish process for referenda requires the referendum to be on the legislation change, generally.
M.
Mortarboard said:
How would you have handled the parliamentary situation?
Included a commitment to whatever deal is agreed with the Art50 triggering legislation? That would avoid the "undermining" of the referendum via parliament.
The irish process for referenda requires the referendum to be on the legislation change, generally.
M.
It's irrelevant as I wasn't in charge.Included a commitment to whatever deal is agreed with the Art50 triggering legislation? That would avoid the "undermining" of the referendum via parliament.
The irish process for referenda requires the referendum to be on the legislation change, generally.
M.
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
Aside from that, speaking hypothetically - what could/should the UK have done differently? I know most would say "not triggered A50 until you know what you want/what you think you can get" - but with a 48-52 referendum result, politically would any party leader have delayed it, realistically?
Personally, I believe the UK left a lot of it's data-gathering extremely late. I was contacted by a Government minion regarding what chemicals we made, and what difficulties the chemical industry might face in the event of various brexit scenarios. However, that was june/july 2018 - far too late in the day, imho. If at all possible, I wouldn't have triggered A50 until the various implications were known.
M.
I’m pretty sure your first paragraph is wrong. The May deal would have meant accepting all rules and regs with no input into the making of them. They would also prevent any trade deals being struck without EU input as any deal the U.K. did would impact the EU, which would therefore be pointless as we’d never actually be able to negotiate anything. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
Aside from that, speaking hypothetically - what could/should the UK have done differently? I know most would say "not triggered A50 until you know what you want/what you think you can get" - but with a 48-52 referendum result, politically would any party leader have delayed it, realistically?
Personally, I believe the UK left a lot of it's data-gathering extremely late. I was contacted by a Government minion regarding what chemicals we made, and what difficulties the chemical industry might face in the event of various brexit scenarios. However, that was june/july 2018 - far too late in the day, imho. If at all possible, I wouldn't have triggered A50 until the various implications were known.
M.
The May deal was an absolute disaster all round if the intention was actually leaving the EU.
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
1. Is there a technological solution?
2. If there is, will the EU agree to using it, given if they don't then they can hold the UK in their keep-net indefinitely
?
London424 said:
I’m pretty sure your first paragraph is wrong. The May deal would have meant accepting all rules and regs with no input into the making of them. They would also prevent any trade deals being struck without EU input as any deal the U.K. did would impact the EU, which would therefore be pointless as we’d never actually be able to negotiate anything.
The May deal was an absolute disaster all round if the intention was actually leaving the EU.
You're right - just refreshed my recollection: https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/07/what-is-in-the...The May deal was an absolute disaster all round if the intention was actually leaving the EU.
The single market stuff would have allowed my understanding above, but the customs union part would have "locked" the UK in to EU compatible trade deals.
Wonder if a SM deal could have been established, without the Customs Union?
M.
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
SpeckledJim said:
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
1. Is there a technological solution?
2. If there is, will the EU agree to using it, given if they don't then they can hold the UK in their keep-net indefinitely
?
1. I had doubts about a technology solution but then again it was the brexiters who had claimed it was an easy solution but changed their minds.
2. Much was made of this by the ultras but May also negotiated a side agreement where the EU agreed to act reasonably. I would have suggested that a joint committee to agree acceptance criteria and independent arbitration would have solved the issue.
It throws up the question: who is the "impartial arbiter of disputes" for the current agreement?
After all, the same arguments are being made now over tge application of the NIP. I dont recall ever hearing who/what entity disputes under the agreement.
Is it the WTO or some other body?
M.
After all, the same arguments are being made now over tge application of the NIP. I dont recall ever hearing who/what entity disputes under the agreement.
Is it the WTO or some other body?
M.
Tuna said:
Bit of a strawman there - I've not mentioned the red lines,. They were a disastrous tactic for May to declare them and then almost immediately cross them.
The single smartest thing Frost did in the negotiations was to conduct the whole of the UK position in public when the EU tried to keep their side private. Frost got out position papers early and regularly, and laid out the UK's goals so that there was no ambiguity. Up to that point, May had followed the EU's lead in keeping things private (or in some cases, not even recorded) - which was a tactic that completely played into the EU's default position of "we can't accept your deal, try again". That only works if people can't see what they are rejecting, and follow the narrative that "if the EU is rejecting it, it must be at fault".
The scheduling part was important, in that Barnier's position of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" fell apart when it became clear that uncontroversial details (again, all laid out in public papers) were being completely ignored by the EU for no good reason. The UK gained a lot of moral high ground when it was revealed the EU had not even read some of the papers weeks, (and in some cases a couple of months if I recall correctly) after they had been published. But that's nothing to do with having a clever timetable so much as preventing the EU from manipulating the schedule. You have to remember that Ivan Rogers wrote some excellent analysis of how weak the UK's position was once we had lost control of sequencing under May.
He did what now? Another way of looking at it was he presented a selective narrative and any suggestion that it made any difference to the outcome is questionable at best. I 100% get that any deal that he did had to have the support of the UK public (enough of them at least) so it's a perfectly understandable tactic.The single smartest thing Frost did in the negotiations was to conduct the whole of the UK position in public when the EU tried to keep their side private. Frost got out position papers early and regularly, and laid out the UK's goals so that there was no ambiguity. Up to that point, May had followed the EU's lead in keeping things private (or in some cases, not even recorded) - which was a tactic that completely played into the EU's default position of "we can't accept your deal, try again". That only works if people can't see what they are rejecting, and follow the narrative that "if the EU is rejecting it, it must be at fault".
The scheduling part was important, in that Barnier's position of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" fell apart when it became clear that uncontroversial details (again, all laid out in public papers) were being completely ignored by the EU for no good reason. The UK gained a lot of moral high ground when it was revealed the EU had not even read some of the papers weeks, (and in some cases a couple of months if I recall correctly) after they had been published. But that's nothing to do with having a clever timetable so much as preventing the EU from manipulating the schedule. You have to remember that Ivan Rogers wrote some excellent analysis of how weak the UK's position was once we had lost control of sequencing under May.
Your timing is unfortunate given his performance in today's commons session that I'll admit I've only watched & read a few highlights and not the whole thing. But part of the gist seems to be "this isn't what I wanted and it's not my fault". He's still also playing to the gallery when suggesting the protocol needs the consent of all in NI (an impossible bar) when he's not prepared to ask anyone in NI other than those who'll give him the answer he wants, and nobody on the EU side is dumb enough to believe that but that's not who he's trying to convince.
Didn't take you for an Ivan Rogers fan, if I remember correctly one of his other comments was that Frost's appointment proves that brexit isn't done.
Mrr T said:
In answer to the questions.
1. I had doubts about a technology solution but then again it was the brexiters who had claimed it was an easy solution but changed their minds.
2. Much was made of this by the ultras but May also negotiated a side agreement where the EU agreed to act reasonably. I would have suggested that a joint committee to agree acceptance criteria and independent arbitration would have solved the issue.
1. LOL1. I had doubts about a technology solution but then again it was the brexiters who had claimed it was an easy solution but changed their minds.
2. Much was made of this by the ultras but May also negotiated a side agreement where the EU agreed to act reasonably. I would have suggested that a joint committee to agree acceptance criteria and independent arbitration would have solved the issue.
2. LOFL
roger.mellie said:
Didn't take you for an Ivan Rogers fan, if I remember correctly one of his other comments was that Frost's appointment proves that brexit isn't done.
I've got a lot of respect for Rogers - he's an extremely experienced guy and his articles and speeches lay out the mechanics of a lot of what we've faced.He's right about Frost too. I don't believe for a moment that Brexit was ever a switch that we could flick and be done with. That doesn't mean there weren't some key milestones that we would hit along the way, but when the EU unilaterally decides to "reopen" negotiations over the agreement they completed with Canada six years ago, it's pretty clear that everyone regards these things as ongoing business.
It's a bit like building a home (crap metaphor alert!) - you're never completely done with it, but you're still able to move in and start living in the place. No-one really claims "that's not your real home" just because you're still paying a mortgage, and plan to build an extension in a few years time.
Mortarboard said:
Oilchange said:
It's irrelevant as I wasn't in charge.
Nobody accused you of being in charge 
But had you been, what approach do you think ypu might have taken?
M.
eta someone said that Frosts first move was to make the negotiations public. I certainly would have done this, put it all on live tv even so all could see what was being talked about and how.
Edited by Oilchange on Tuesday 22 June 16:49
Mortarboard said:
How would you have handled the parliamentary situation?
Included a commitment to whatever deal is agreed with the Art50 triggering legislation? That would avoid the "undermining" of the referendum via parliament.
The irish process for referenda requires the referendum to be on the legislation change, generally.
M.
May's biggest mistake was not taking people along with the journey (either parliament or the public). She presented a done deal, which meant everyone was immediately suspicious of it. I'd say that A50 was triggered far too early, but the key thing was that there wasn't a clear, public narrative of how we got from A to B.Included a commitment to whatever deal is agreed with the Art50 triggering legislation? That would avoid the "undermining" of the referendum via parliament.
The irish process for referenda requires the referendum to be on the legislation change, generally.
M.
Mrr T said:
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
It's funny that a lot of Remainers claim that Boris' deal is identical to Mays. You don't take time to correct them, do you?It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
As for technological solution - you have to be a very stubborn individual to ignore that what is essentially the first newly created border in years could not take advantage of a lot of technological improvements over the old border processes. No longer do we have to carry around paper dockets that were faxed to us to prove that our business is legitimate. Equally, knowing that border policing is not an absolute (from a certain level of porosity to deliberately low levels of actually imposed checks), there is no reason for a border not to be designed to be efficient rather than a nonsensical ideal of perfection.
barryrs said:
Wasn’t the triggering of A50 another EU driven decision as they wouldn’t discuss Brexit in advance of.
Yes - but I also got the distinct impression that the UK didn't have a clear idea of what it wanted/needed/preferred before triggering A50 either.As I mentioned, the UK government only did info gathering in the chemical industry in mid 2018. Bit late then if you need to start up new plants.......
Certainly, going into a negotiation without "having done your homework" would not be my preferred way of doing it.
Another good question would be could the UK (and maybe they did, but not made public) sound out potential trade partners ahead of triggering A50? Certainly could have floated the possibility of "rollover" deals prior to doing it, surely?
One possibility would have been (to expand on Oilchange's approach) might have been: Trigger A50, with the understanding that if nothing is agreed, then "no deal" it is. Might have been an effective foil against the EU stance of "no talks until A50 is triggered"
M.
Mortarboard said:
It throws up the question: who is the "impartial arbiter of disputes" for the current agreement?
After all, the same arguments are being made now over tge application of the NIP. I dont recall ever hearing who/what entity disputes under the agreement.
Is it the WTO or some other body?
M.
Current WAAfter all, the same arguments are being made now over tge application of the NIP. I dont recall ever hearing who/what entity disputes under the agreement.
Is it the WTO or some other body?
M.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qi...
Part 6 Title III is the dispute resolution process. I expect it was similar in the May agreement but cannot see a copy at the moment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff