Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[RobboM]

5 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

WORTH WATCHING THIS FOR THE BACKGROUND ON FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS...

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-46073360/brexit-basics-free-trade-agreements-explained

Thanks Mysterion

[jake]

6 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

Libs don't need to change their approach - would look weak. 

SNP will not change - the next Indie campaign is reliant on hammering home how Scotland was ignored and that the Unionists claimed individuals would lose their membership of the European Union. 

 

I can see a combo of Conservative and Labour voters agreeing to it. 

If a confirmatory referendum is held then I can see it being Revoke Article 50 vs Free Trade Deal (and FTD winning).

I'd be happy with that.

I know remainers have lots of good reasons but this will make it easier to break free completely when needed.

And keep the financial perception in tact.

The EU is a relic and it is to beauracratic to change.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, jake said:

Agree.

 

Not sure I do

 Didn't the EU make agreememt on the divorce bill and the backstop pre-conditions for entering any further negotiations.

Do agree that the process has been arse about tit. The destination should have been agreed first then the transition to the destination. 

But I think both the EU and most of the UK parliament did not want Brexit to happen and have been intent on trying to prevent it.

 

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

transition to the destination. 

But I think both the EU and most of the UK parliament did not want Brexit to happen and have been intent on trying to prevent it.

that’s been obvious from day 1.

[Victorian]

14 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Is this such a big step forward?
It's been proposed throughout the process BUT does not address what happens as UK "takes back control" to diverge in the regulations of the Single Market. “the single market is a set of rules and standards and is a shared jurisdiction. Its integrity
is non-negotiable, as is the autonomy of decisions of the 27. Either you’re in or you’re out.” UK's unique position is that, for now at least, there is no divergence. Who oversees that divergence, EU would insist on ECJ.

 

Correct.    It might be a good solution but only as a clearly set out process to ongoing negotiations towards a more permanent relationship.     Otherwise it will be portrayed as a surrender deal and UK vassalage by the extremists.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Correct.    It might be a good solution but only as a clearly set out process to ongoing negotiations towards a more permanent relationship.     Otherwise it will be portrayed as a surrender deal and UK vassalage by the extremists.

Genuine question. Do the many existing and proposed  EU  trade agreements with third parties provide for ECJ jurisdiction? Would surprise me if so.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Genuine question. Do the many existing and proposed  EU  trade agreements with third parties provide for ECJ jurisdiction? Would surprise me if so.

 

Not sure.    But any form of rules and regulation allignment will be portrayed in the same way as ECJ jurisdiction by the extremist maniacs who want UK independence MAX+.    

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Not sure.    But any form of rules and regulation allignment will be portrayed in the same way as ECJ jurisdiction by the extremist maniacs who want UK independence MAX+.    

I am sure it would. But my point was more about claims that a uk/eu trade deal would necessarily be subject to ECJ jurisdiction. I am surprised that the EU has any third party trade deals if that is a precondition or that say the USA would even open discussions if it was.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Victorian]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

I am sure it would. But my point was more about claims that a uk/eu trade deal would necessarily be subject to ECJ jurisdiction. I am surprised that the EU has any third party trade deals if that is a precondition or that the USA would even open discussions if it was.

 

I don't know.   But it doesn't seem all that unreasonable that it would be a precondition of a hastily arranged FTA as a primary stage towards further renegotiation.     

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

I don't know.   But it doesn't seem all that unreasonable that it would be a precondition of a hastily arranged FTA as a primary stage towards further renegotiation.     

Agreed. But isn't that what the EU/May transition agreement meant in effect? Trade remains as it is until a new FTA is agreed. But for the premature backstop condition imposed by the EU that might just have got through even the pro-remain UK parliament. But on the other hand Parliament might have still said no as it has to every Leave model put to it.

 

PS while respecting the vote of course.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Francis Albert

[RobboM]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Genuine question. Do the many existing and proposed  EU  trade agreements with third parties provide for ECJ jurisdiction? Would surprise me if so.

Correct FA I was jumping ahead.
My assumption was that a free trade agreement would be part of an attempt to enable frictionless trade between UK/EU at the Irish border with something that at least mimics arrangements in place for EEA which follows EU law.Maybe the EFTA Court would at least sound more acceptable?

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. But isn't that what the EU/May transition agreement meant in effect? Trade remains as it is until a new FTA is agreed. But for the premature backstop condition imposed by the EU that might just have got through even the pro-remain UK parliament. But on the other hand Parliament might have still said no as it has to every Leave model put to it.

 

Well the Backstop was seen as a possible perpetual trap within EU control if no permanent FTA solution materialised.    Perhaps the crucial difference here is in the staging and dynamics of putting in place the first version of a FTA with amendments to be decided upon.     A nuanced difference in the mutual understanding of the process.

[Mikey1874]

The key thing for Boris Johnson has been to get DUP and Tory staunch Brexiteers to back him. Whatever is cobbled together being in practice close to the fudge agreed by May. 

 

He doesn't need other parties. While technically no majority he has enough from 21 Tories lost Whip, the independent N.Irish lady. 2 Labour MPs also confirmed. Others won't but not needed.

 

Golden ticket to go into General Election with. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

The key thing for Boris Johnson has been to get DUP and Tory staunch Brexiteers to back him. Whatever is cobbled together being in practice close to the fudge agreed by May. 

 

He doesn't need other parties. While technically no majority he has enough from 21 Tories lost Whip, the independent N.Irish lady. 2 Labour MPs also confirmed. Others won't but not needed.

 

Golden ticket to go into General Election with. 

 

In that scenario he would get quite a few Labour votes.    A few determined to avoid no deal... a few in leaver seats to deliver a Brexit for their own prospects.

 

Election?    It all depends on the details of the deal (the Brexitness of the Brexit) and the Brexit Party reaction.    If the deal can be portrayed as too soft and the Brexit Party remain in the game to push for a harder future destination,   the Tories lose vote share.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Well the Backstop was seen as a possible perpetual trap within EU control if no permanent FTA solution materialised.    Perhaps the crucial difference here is in the staging and dynamics of putting in place the first version of a FTA with amendments to be decided upon.     A nuanced difference in the mutual understanding of the process.

Seen as a perpetual trap within EU control or designed as such?

[Victorian]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Seen as a perpetual trap within EU control or designed as such?

 

Seen.

[Unknown user]

Who came up with the backstop? It was the uk wasn't it?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Who came up with the backstop? It was the uk wasn't it?

No. It was the EU. We have been round this lap before. I remember our old Dublin correspondent congratulating the EU on coming up with  the "solution" to the border issue.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Seen.

 Depending on who is looking

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

No. It was the EU. We have been round this lap before.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

I was under the impression that the backstop proposed in May's deal was our suggestion.

The EU had said there had to be some sort of guarantee, the UK proposed what it should be. 

[ri Alban]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

No. It was the EU. We have been round this lap before. I remember our old Dublin correspondent congratulating the EU on coming up with  the "solution" to the border issue.

 

It was a proposal by the UK government. 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It was a proposal by the UK government. 

 

That's what I thought

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

It was a proposal by the UK government. 

Not according to almost every source that comes up with an answer to where it came from. And Not at all as I remember it first discussed on here.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not according to almost every source that comes up with an answer to where it came from. And Not at all as I remember it first discussed on here.

 

The very first source I checked says it was the UK's suggestion

 

From June 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/07/brexit-what-is-the-uks-backstop-proposal

 

So what is the UK’s backstop proposal?

In essence, the UK’s proposal is for the whole of the UK to remain in the customs union for a limited period after the end of the transition period – so it would leave the EU in March 2019 and the single market in December 2020, but stay in the customs union for longer. The idea is “to apply a temporary customs arrangement ... between the UK and the EU” that would allow the UK to sign free trade deals with other countries (but not implement the parts of them relating to tariffs, rendering them largely pointless). The proposed UK backstop “will only be in place until the future customs arrangement can be introduced”, which the government “expects” to be the end of December 2021 at the latest.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

The very first source I checked says it was the UK's suggestion

 

From June 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/07/brexit-what-is-the-uks-backstop-proposal

 

 

 

 

Which as far as I see is nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed EU backstop of a (hard) border down the Irish Sea  separating one part of the UK from the rest.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Which as far as I see is nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed EU backstop of a (hard) border down the Irish Sea  separating one part of the UK from the rest.

 

Mon then, give us some of the sources you checked. 

Tbh I can't remember, although I do vaguely remember thinking "can't get it through parliament and we came up with the ****ing thing"

[RobboM]

Regardless of whether the backstop solution came from UK or EU it was an answer to the question that both sides had ie what would happen if, at the end of UK-EU negotiations, there was not a solution which maintained borderless trade within the island of Ireland?

That question still remains and In the intervening period there has been NO proposals which satisfy this issue whether it comes at the start of negotiations or at the end.


 

[Unknown user]

Just now, RobboM said:

Regardless of whether the backstop solution came from UK or EU it was an answer to the question that both sides had ie what would happen if, at the end of UK-EU negotiations, there was not a solution which maintained borderless trade within the island of Ireland?

That question still remains and In the intervening period there has been NO proposals which satisfy this issue whether it comes at the start of negotiations or at the end.

 

I honestly can't remember any more, but there seemed to be the insinuation that it was an EU ploy and I thought I remembered differently. 

You're right, but I'd still be interested to know where it originated if anyone can be hooped finding the relevant info. 

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Mon then, give us some of the sources you checked. 

Tbh I can't remember, although I do vaguely remember thinking "can't get it through parliament and we came up with the ****ing thing"

Your source, despite it being the Guardian will do. It says the UK did not propose a back stop  but an alignment until something else was agreed, 

[RobboM]

Apologies for the length of this post but it's an interesting read on the events around the development of the backstop. It comes from a series of blog posts I'd posted links for yesterday. My reading on who was behind the "backstop" is that the UK proposed it and the EU defined it.

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/25/brexit-part-5/content.html
 

London did have one thing right. The structure of the negotiation was awkward. The UK was being asked to write a formula for the Irish border without knowing its broader future relationship.

The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at Downing Street after talks with Theresa May on the backstop

 

This is the origin of the so-called “backstop” – the central problem of the talks. The backstop is a guarantee of how, even if the talks were to end acrimoniously, the UK would manage Northern Ireland so that there would not be a noticeable border.

In the event that the UK completed a deal with Europe which meant the border was clear and frictionless, the backstop need never be used. But, in the event of talks collapsing or the UK not meeting that bar, the backstop was a treaty within a treaty. It would provide a legal framework that would kick in and take effect. It sought to set a floor on the relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

As the clock ticked ever louder, the need to move the talks on became a weight on government. And it became clear that the backstop would need to be ambitious. In November, a leaked report revealed just how ambitious: the Commission was considering solutions involving keeping Northern Ireland tied closely to the EU, with checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

By the start of December 2017, the prime minister took personal control of the talks. Davis told me: “Juncker calls up and says: ‘We should have a meeting over lunch with Theresa and David and Olly and Michel and Martin and me.’ And I think: ‘Great. That means we’re going to get movement.’”

On 3 December, May called Davis. “On the Sunday, she calls me up and tells me, ‘We’ve agreed the wording’ and I must admit I thought: ‘We’ve already agreed the wording’. I didn’t say it.”

He says May said: “There are two areas where you might have some concern. One on the role of the European Court with respect to citizens.’ … I did, but it wasn’t major. ‘And the other is that we’ve agreed on Northern Ireland; there’ll be full alignment’.”

“I said to her: ‘You can’t say that, prime minister. That’s harmonisation. We’re explicitly against harmonisation.’”

A promise of Brexit for many Tories had been less regulation. Harmonisation would mean taking EU rules for Northern Ireland – which, now, the UK would not be involved in writing.

The prime minister told him: “Oh, no no it’s not harmonisation. It’s full alignment of outcomes.”

Later on, Brexiter cabinet ministers would be assured, as Davis was, that this did not mean Northern Ireland would be required to take on EU rules. It just meant, they were told, that rules needed to lead to the same sort of results. (“This was just a lie”, one former official told me. “She knew that wasn’t true”. Another said: “We hoped it was ambiguous enough and we could stretch it.”)

Davis says he replied to her: “Are you sure, prime minister, the other side see it that way? Let me tell you, the history of diplomacy where two sides agree the same words but mean different things by them is not a very good history. From the Balfour Declaration onwards …”

“Well, we need to make progress,” she said. Tick tock. Tick tock.

This was a big step. This was a logical consequence of the August paper on Ireland – which made much the same pledge. But it meant that if the UK were to diverge from the rest of Europe on rules, regulations and trade, Northern Ireland would be left behind inside the EU.

The EU and UK negotiating teams had agreed a text to that effect. But Connelly, the RTÉ journalist, got hold of some of the drafts. The final version he obtained matched what Davis had been told: “In the absence of agreed solutions the UK will ensure that there continues to be continued regulatory alignment from those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement.”

The DUP leader Arlene Foster and her deputy, Nigel Dodds. They were furious to discover via a press leak Northern Ireland would effectively be left in the EU

The leak meant the DUP now knew. Davis says: “So we go to Brussels for the lunch and while we’re walking down the corridor in the Berlaymont, Ian Paisley [a DUP MP] rings me: ‘This doesn’t work, David’. ‘Well you better get your boss to ring my boss.’”

During the lunch, the phone rang.

In a room, with Juncker, Barnier, Selmayr, Robbins and Davis present, the prime minister had to take a call from Arlene Foster, the DUP leader: “It must have been … an hour later. We were past the main course … Arlene Foster spent half an hour berating the prime minister during the lunch.” Juncker, Davis says, left the room out of courtesy.

In a public statement, Foster said: “We will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom.” The DUP’s votes were essential to the government – and the collapse of the Northern Ireland assembly meant no other voices were heard. That Monday afternoon, the deal seemed to fall apart.

But, by Friday, the UK government had put together a plan. Davis said: “We ended up having this crack-of-dawn departure to Brussels from Northolt [a Royal Air Force base in London] – 3.30 in the morning. Breakfast in Brussels with Juncker to agree it. All sorts of things you learn from that. They were desperate to do a deal. ‘How much time do you need? Can we talk to people?’… He desperately didn’t want it to get blown up.”

A text was agreed. The backstop appeared, finally, in December 2017 in a document known as the Joint Report. It is worth reading paragraph 49 of that document:

“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”

“Full alignment” had been the problem before. But paragraph 50 sought to mollify the DUP: “In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.”

This created something of a trap. It was a paragraph with two readings.

To Britain, it meant that the EU could not do anything that would require the UK to erect barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

To the EU, it was a promise made by Britons to themselves. The internal issues of the UK – how movement within the country is treated – are for Britain. They are not for the EU.

There was ambiguity in the Joint Report. But seizing the advantage in the gaps in meaning would require some enterprise.

A UK negotiator told me: “One of the mistakes made was not getting out in front of that … There were [officials] inside here … pushing for us to publish [draft treaty] text“. Such a legal text could press their version of “full alignment” or paragraph 50, for example. The Commission, too, remained bemused that the UK did not issue a legal text.

Robbins is named, widely, as a block on this sort of action in this period.

In February 2018, the UK paid a price for this inaction. The Commission published a draft text of a withdrawal agreement. It set out that Northern Ireland would be drawn into “a common regulatory area”. Northern Ireland would, in effect, be drawn into a customs union with the EU, and follow a range of other EU rules. The rest of the UK would be outside this net.

This meant that the EU’s reading of Paragraph 50 – the one barring east-west checks – became the one that counted.

A negotiator told me: “Once they had done that, and it was just so far away from anything we could ever accept, we were then trying to claw back, and that was a fundamental problem. If you look at the path of the negotiation … it’s been quite rare for one side that is completely … out of whack with the other side … There’s usually some back-channelling so you know how stuff is going to land.”

Theresa May accidentally negotiated an agreement which would cut the Union in two

The DUP, whatever else it stands for, stands against division between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The prime minister announced that “no UK prime minister could ever agree to” this proposal because it would threaten the “constitutional integrity of the UK”.

The unionist prime minister reliant on DUP votes had accidentally negotiated a deal which would cut the union in two.

[Unknown user]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Your source, despite it being the Guardian will do. It says the UK did not propose a back stop  but an alignment until something else was agreed, 

 

Didn't you just say that article had nothing to do with the backstop we were discussing?

See if you stop arguing for 5 seconds, a conversation might just break out!

[Pans Jambo]

56 minutes ago, weehammy said:

A significant number of SNP MPs have been part of that shit stained blanket.

Really???

 

Is this where you say if the SNP voted for May’s shit deal to leave the EU we wouldnt be in this position now?

 

Ignoring the fact that even if every single one of them voted for it, it still would have failed. 

 

Ignoring the fact that Scotland voted almost 2 thirds to remain. 
 

Or the fact that your PM voted against it twice himself?

 

If its not that then in what way have they been part of that shit stained blanket?

[Governor Tarkin]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

I honestly can't remember any more.

 

Exotic tobacco has rendered me like that too.

[Unknown user]

16 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Exotic tobacco has rendered me like that too.

 

[Costanza]

Just saw this tweet. If only this information about the increase in red tape had been fully explained before the referendum. 

It could have been on the other side of that bus that businesses would be hit with an extra £15Bn of red tape..

 

https://www.ft.com/content/30c58758-e91e-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

[Pans Jambo]

7 hours ago, Costanza said:

Just saw this tweet. If only this information about the increase in red tape had been fully explained before the referendum. 

It could have been on the other side of that bus that businesses would be hit with an extra £15Bn of red tape..

 

https://www.ft.com/content/30c58758-e91e-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

The penny still hasnt dropped for some though...

[ri Alban]

How do Scots Brexiters like Gove, have the brass neck to criticise the SNP for wanting Scottish Independence. 

[ri Alban]

Is Kezia Dugdale about to join the SNP? She's chucked Labour over Brexit.

[Victorian]

14 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Is Kezia Dugdale about to join the SNP? She's chucked Labour over Brexit.

 

Shit.  Hope not.  That's an instant 5% vote hit.

[dobmisterdobster]

Kezia could join the Lib Dems who are basically just a unionist SNP.

[Mikey1874]

22 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Kezia could join the Lib Dems who are basically just a unionist SNP.

 

More insight in just a short sentence.

 

If everyone left their parties because they disagreed with something there would be about 2 left. 

 

Probably, because she said she was, its more about Labour withdrawing support in her legal action from the Independence Blogger. And disagreeing with Corbyn and Momentum which is mainly why people are leaving 

[Mikey1874]

Being reported these talks have ended after less than 2 hours. Probably meeting again later on. 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Mikey1874

[dobmisterdobster]

35 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

More insight in just a short sentence.

 

If everyone left their parties because they disagreed with something there would be about 2 left. 

 

Probably, because she said she was, its more about Labour withdrawing support in her legal action from the Independence Blogger. And disagreeing with Corbyn and Momentum which is mainly why people are leaving 

She was never a part of Corbyn's kliq. Which is probably why she was turfed out of the leadership.

Edited October 11, 2019 by dobmisterdobster

[Justin Z]

Not sure where else to put this . . . worth the laugh

[Pans Jambo]

10 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Ah, so it’s only those who voted a certain way that are shit stained.  You’re ignoring the fact that 55% voted to stay in the UK so ‘my PM’ is also yours.

Well I would just point out that the SNP are there (Westminster) to represent Scotland who voted remain by a huge margin. NOT the English Independence project and their Scottish based apologists!

Edit: Hes not my PM, I didnt vote for him and neither did anyone else!

Edited October 11, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Pans Jambo]

32 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Not sure where else to put this . . . worth the laugh

[Don Dan]

Michael Barnier given the green light to go into Tunnel negotiations with the UK over a deal by the EU!

I wonder what’s changed? 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Dannie Boy

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Michael Barnier given the green light to go into Tunnel negotiations with the UK over a deal by the EU!

I wonder what’s changed? 

 

 

The meeting with Varadkar yesterday seems to have changed everything, it was billed as the last chance saloon for both sides, maybe that's concentrated minds somewhat, or then again maybe it's just been the EU way, as they have form for leaving things to the last minute.

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Michael Barnier given the green light to go into Tunnel negotiations with the UK over a deal by the EU!

I wonder what’s changed? 

 

 

Irish saying UK has made concessions on customs. 

[Don Dan]

18 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The meeting with Varadkar yesterday seems to have changed everything, it was billed as the last chance saloon for both sides, maybe that's concentrated minds somewhat, or then again maybe it's just been the EU way, as they have form for leaving things to the last minute.

 

17 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Irish saying UK has made concessions on customs. 

something had to give. If Bonking Boris has moved it will be interesting to see how and if it’s approved by Parliament here. Otherwise he’s on a slippery pole once more😎