Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Mikey1874]

 

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The political imperative for Labour is: do not allow Brexit to get them covered in the Tories' mess. Their strategy is: wait for the Tories to destroy themselves, then force an election. Given that even Blairite Labour MPs will vote against, I simply do not see how this translates to letting the deal through.

 

Election can follow the inevitable government defeat / no confidence. DUP will be out by the vote. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I'm not so sure on that. You might well be right: certainly, I anticipate more window dressing than you can shake a stick at from the government, even had those individuals left - but the question is whether their staying is an acceptance of reality ("May's got us all by the balls"), or a further sign of their self-delusion and epic levels of self-importance.

 

It's far too late to make any substantive difference to the deal (which isn't even a deal really; it's a transition arrangement kicking the can down the road) - but they might not see it that way. Mourdant in particular.

 

In my view it's absolutely a fatalistic,  impotent,   feeble exercise in self interest in the face of being beyond the point of no return and no cards left to play.      Any cabinet member against this deal should have resigned and helped to cause a meaningful change.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

Episode 1: The Messiah's Path to Power

 

Episode 2: The Messiah in Power

 

Episode 3: The Messiah is Betrayed by His Ungrateful Public

 

Or alternatively:

 

"Shagged dead pig. Chatted with that nice Mr Murdoch. Wrecked economy. Concocted cunning ruse to secure glorious election triumph by promising EU referendum. What could possibly go wrong?"

[Mikey1874]

"The Comeback" 

[shaun.lawson]

5 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Election can follow the inevitable government defeat / no confidence. DUP will be out by the vote. 

 

?????

 

What no confidence vote? Your argument is that unity will break out via Labour abstaining en masse.

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

?????

 

What no confidence vote? Your argument is that unity will break out via Labour abstaining en masse.

 

We'll see

 

Labour certainly do not have full control over all their MPs but there are not enough rebels to help May.

 

Labour will be in a strong position and I do not see them allowing No Deal. Bear in mind EU countries have been talking to Labour. 

 

At present it is Deal or No Deal. The other options are currently distant. 

 

I believe they can combine the deal being passed with the government falling. 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Thunderstruck]

19 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I'm not deluded

 

Labour can play it to let the Tories destroy themselves then agree deal is best option probably abstaining 

 

Lots to play out before then 

 

No Deal isn't going to be allowed to happen

 

Labour have yet to articulate what they would do. Thus far, they have limited themselves to their ludicrous “six tests” and playing the man, not the ball. 

 

In fact, they seem quite confused. Last weekend, Corbyn told a German newspaper that ‘Brexit cannot be stopped.’ By Tuesday, Kier Starmer was telling us that ‘Brexit can be stopped.’ By Thursday, SNP’s Blackford was speaking for them and telling the World that ‘neither the SNP nor Labour will allow a Hard Brexit to happen.’

 

Some of the most ardent Eurosceptics in Parliament inhabit the higher reaches of the Labour Party. The Labour manifesto for any election will make for interesting reading. 

 

[Don Dan]

PM live on Sophy Ridge on Sunday. Sophy is a pretty good interviewer who doesn’t let her own views colour her questions. Corbyn also on Sophy Ridge on Sunday as well. Should make for an interesting watch. 

 

[frankblack]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

It took an individual with money to confirm something which Brexiteers like you had campaigned on, then abruptly opposed as soon as the referendum was won. Parliament is sovereign.

 

Thanks to Gina Miller's efforts - for which she was rewarded with death threats, rape threats, you name it - Parliament is indeed sovereign. But neither it nor the government are allowed to override the law of the land. 

 

I won't condone the unacceptable but I disagree that those with privilege can use their money to overturn government decisions in the court.

 

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

As for your comment at the start: this is the Shed. And something rather important is happening to the UK right now. Something which puts football into its proper perspective.

 

Ok.  Hopefully we won't see you stirring in the Terrace any time soon calling for our manager's head. ?

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

At the general election, both main parties stood on a platform supporting Brexit and accepting the referendum decision. Both promptly scored their highest share of the vote in decades: 85% in total. 

 

We've had a national government in peacetime before. What was "the clear and common enemy"? Economic disaster. Funny, that reminds me of something...

As has been covered before both major parties said little more than waffling about "respecting the Brexit vote" with no clarity or consensus about what that meant and many of their candidates have been working since they were elected to reverse it.

The national government in the 30s was as you say triggered by economic disaster ... but was also formed as a result of Ramsay Macdonald in many if not most Labour members and supporters view betraying the Labour Party, for which he was and is widely reviled. It was also an actual economic disaster, not a mere prediction of one.

The Nazi threat was clear but it was only when it became an unavoidable reality that a national government emerged. It  attracted widespread support and the credentials of Attlee, Bevin and the rest  as Labour loyalists was never doubted.

So your analogy doesn't stand up.

A national government after the  Brexit vote would not have solved anything ... might even have made things worse.

At least May has a withdrawal deal, which if you look at the detail would I think satisfy most other than the extreme supporters of a Hard Brexit and the most extreme Europhiles.

It is a basis for a Soft Brexit which realistically is the best most Remainers could have (and once did) hope for after the referendum vote.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Statts1976uk]

I am going to apologise in advance for the length of the article but it is certainly an interesting read. I couldn’t post a link to it as it was behind a paywall.

 

This week, Theresa May’s government teetered on the point of collapse over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest. However, May’s remaining ministers have since attempted to rally around her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared ‘a deal is better than no deal’. This is rather different to May’s old claim that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

So, is Fox right? Mr S thought it best to let readers decide for themselves. In theory, Britain is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. But the legal small print, published by Brussels, shows what this means. Parliament will be asked to ratify a deal which clearly admits that ‘all references to ‘Member States’ and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.’ (Article 7). So the UK will be bound by EU laws, at least during a transition period. But this ‘transition period’ can be be made to last forever (Article 132).  And even if a successor deal is agreed, the UK will have signed away other rights for years to come.

Just in case readers don’t have the time to go through the lengthly document themselves, Steerpike has compiled a list of the top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal:

In summary: The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or, more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (“up to 31 December 20XX”, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

Should it end within two years, as May hopes, the UK will still be signed up to clauses keeping us under certain rules (like VAT and ECJ supervision) for a further eight years. Some clauses have, quite literally, a “lifetime” duration (Art.39). If the UK defaults on transition, we go in to the backstop with the Customs Union and, realistically, the single market. We can only leave the transition positively with a deal. But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop. The European Court of Justice remains sovereign, as repeatedly stipulated. Perhaps most damagingly of all, we agree to sign away the rights we would have, under international law, to unilaterally walk away. Again, what follows relates (in most part) for the “transition” period. But the language is consistent with the E.U. imagining that this will be the final deal.

The top 40 horrors:

    From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
    May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
    The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
    The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
    The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
    Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
    “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
    The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
    Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
    The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
    Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
    The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
    The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
    The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
    The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article ?
    The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
    All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
    Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
    The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
    Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
    Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
    The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)
    The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)
    The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
    The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
    We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
    The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
    The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
    Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
    The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
    Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
    The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
    The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
    The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
    The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
    And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
    The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
    The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
    The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
    And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

[Francis Albert]

Interesting read. Won't quote it all. My view that the May deal wasn't too bad was based on summaries that suggested its terms applied only to the end of a transition period ... at latest the end of 2020. The above suggests something else. I find it frustrating that despite acres of newsprint and endless hours of so called news we never get any clear explanation of the facts and what exactly anything actually means.

 

[shaun.lawson]

Both these polls suggest the Tories have already lost 10% of Leave support:

 

 

 

And this is just the start of it.

 

That Speccy piece posted above will go seriously viral, and might well ensure many more than 48 Tory MPs declaring no confidence in May. My heart bleeds for all of them.  

[Jambo-Jimbo]

23 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Interesting read. Won't quote it all. My view that the May deal wasn't too bad was based on summaries that suggested its terms applied only to the end of a transition period ... at latest the end of 2020. The above suggests something else. I find it frustrating that despite acres of newsprint and endless hours of so called news we never get any clear explanation of the facts and what exactly anything actually means.

 

 

There is generally a good reason for that.

And judging by the above piece there would be even more reason not to inform the general public of the full text & clauses.

[Statts1976uk]

It certainly has been an eye opener and I do apologise about posting such a long article. I can’t find any concessions that favour the UK.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

 

 

[Francis Albert]

17 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

Both these polls suggest the Tories have already lost 10% of Leave support:

 

 

 

And this is just the start of it.

 

That Speccy piece posted above will go seriously viral, and might well ensure many more than 48 Tory MPs declaring no confidence in May. My heart bleeds for all of them.  

What were the inaccuracies in the "speccy piece"? Genuine question because I feel seriously uninformed by our media.

 

And none of the polls you quote show a majority exceeding that of the actual vote to leave. 

[Statts1976uk]

I know that article will come with a Spectator skew in its opinion but compare it with the BBC piece and it’s scary how much info is not contained in the latter blog.

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en

 

We the people of the EU don’t elect the commission. 

 

Yes, but how does that explain your position?

 

The people of Ireland didn't elect our Cabinet, and the people of the UK didn't elect yours.  We elected the people who appointed our Cabinets.  We didn't elect our judges.  We elected the people who appointed them.  Yet in the United States most judges are elected to their positions.  That doesn't mean that the US is more democratic than the UK or Ireland, or the other way around.  It just means our systems operate differently.

 

The Commission is appointed by the nominations of Member States.  The Council is made up of Cabinet members from each of the Member States.  The Parliament is directly elected.  The Court of Justice is appointed on the basis of nominations of the Member States.  All of these institutions have different powers in a system of checks and balances, and all of this was designed the way it is because the Member States agreed to design it that way.

[shaun.lawson]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What were the inaccuracies in the "speccy piece"? Genuine question because I feel seriously uninformed by our media.

 

And none of the polls you quote show a majority exceeding that of the actual vote to leave. 

 

1. No idea - it's all about interpretation in many ways. But I doubt there are many.

 

2. No: I don't mean 10% of Leavers are no longer Leavers. I mean that the Tories have already, in a matter of days, lost 10% of their support among Leavers: their largest constituency of voters.

 

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

The highlighted text suggests that 29 March 2019 need not be set in stone. 

 

If the Withdrawal Agreement does not gain approval, the alternative to the disorderly Hard Brexit might be to seek to extend the Art. 50 timetable to explore options. 

 

And what happens if the UK doesn't want to do that, or if any one of the other 27 EU Member States says no?

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

That will have to happen. All sides - Labour and the Brexiteers (and maybe some EU countries) - are saying they want to renegotiate the deal. 

 

You mean that everyone on one side is saying they want to re-negotiate, and you think that maybe someone on the other side will want to re-negotiate it as well.

 

I mentioned before that the EU designed its negotiating approach and its team to relieve pressure on our domestic political systems.  That has been achieved.  Why would we re-open that just because the British aren't sure they're happy?

[Francis Albert]

17 minutes ago, Statts1976uk said:

It certainly has been an eye opener and I do apologise about posting such a long article. I can’t find any concessions that favour the UK.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

 

 

Thanks. As with the good friday agreement i am clearly going to have the read the full text before getting beyond self-serving distortions.

Todays news media is a clear example of the old saying  more means worse.

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Notts1874 said:

 

Good that she knows how this whole thing works!!!!!!!

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

You mean that everyone on one side is saying they want to re-negotiate, and you think that maybe someone on the other side will want to re-negotiate it as well.

 

I mentioned before that the EU designed its negotiating approach and its team to relieve pressure on our domestic political systems.  That has been achieved.  Why would we re-open that just because the British aren't sure they're happy?

 

Essentially because no deal is a catastrophe for us and the EU doesn't want a basket case in the north of Europe on its hands.

 

Of course though, it's perfectly possible they'll wash their hands of us, and wait for us to come crawling back begging for anything a few weeks later. 

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

1. “Every time you buy a new computer (or similar device) there’s yet another IEC cable (“kettle flex”) in the box. If you are replacing a PC you plug the old computer’s power cable into the new PC and throw the new cable into a heap of unused ones. It’s an EU law which makes it illegal to ship any such device without a power cable even if the power cable is detachable and could be sold separately or more sensibly, supplied free only if requested. The environmental cost of making and scrapping unused power cables must be enormous.” 

 

 

If I'd known that, I'd have voted to leave myself.  It's an outrageous infringement of my civil liberties, and I'm horrified.

 

Can you let me know which EU Regulation or Directive that's taken from?  I can't track it down.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Shaun, the EU refused to discuss anything until article 50 had been triggered....

 

And rightly so.  Shaun's point isn't really relevant, in fairness, because you had plenty of time to negotiate once Article 50 was invoked.  The problem was that your Government spent months after that not being able to work out what it wanted from the negotiation, and more months just assuming that the EU would cave in on fundamental principles.  That was where the real waste of time happened.

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Essentially because no deal is a catastrophe for us and the EU doesn't want a basket case in the north of Europe on its hands.

 

Of course though, it's perfectly possible they'll wash their hands of us, and wait for us to come crawling back begging for anything a few weeks later. 

Whatever happens in whatever post-brexit world the EU will not have to cope with any basket case more severe than numerous current basket cases currently members of the EU.

 

But maybe as your post implies basket cases are only relevant if they are in the north of europe.

 

Btw basket cases are your words not mine.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I will agree there with you, that there should have been a cross party coalition to agree the UK's position and then negotiate with the EU.

 

There should have been Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish MP's on the negotiating team.

 

That would have helped ease the strain on your domestic political system, in much the way that we relieved the pressure on ours.

 

But you'd still have pretty much the same 585 pages at the end of that process as you do now.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 Economic disaster. Funny, that reminds me of something...

 

Nah.  Economic turbulence, competitive pressures on business, and some losses to the British and EU economies.  But disaster?  Nope, I don't think so.

 

Anyway, it's not about revisiting the arguments for and against Brexit.  It's all about the terms under which Britain leaves.

[Thunderstruck]

Forty rebuttals to Mr Steerpike’s forty horrors. 

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-brexit-deal-40-rebuttals-to-mr-steerpikes-40-horrors/

 

 

[Statts1976uk]

One thing I would like to see is a projection of which countries are likely to go from gaining out of the EU to becoming net contributors to the EU. 

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

which isn't even a deal really; it's a transition arrangement kicking the can down the road

 

it's a transition arrangement kicking the can down the road

 

it's a transition arrangement kicking the can down the road

 

it's a transition arrangement kicking the can down the road

 

 

Kicking the can down the road.

 

Which means more negotiations.

 

Which means.....

 

 

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

22 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

If I'd known that, I'd have voted to leave myself.  It's an outrageous infringement of my civil liberties, and I'm horrified.

 

Can you let me know which EU Regulation or Directive that's taken from?  I can't track it down.

 

He's taken it from an uncited thread on Quora  

 

He might be advised to read this.

 

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

 

[Thunderstruck]

24 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

And what happens if the UK doesn't want to do that, or if any one of the other 27 EU Member States says no?

 

Unless the Agreement passes muster, Hard Brexit which carries risk for all parties. 

[shaun.lawson]

The man who didn't know Dover to Calais is a vital trading route says:

 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, Statts1976uk said:

The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. ?

 

 

That's a lie, and is a classic example of why people should read original sources rather than relying on second-hand reports.

 

First of all it's not Article 6 (that was in a March 2018 draft), it's Article 7.  Secondly, what Article 7 actually says is:

 

"For the purposes of this Agreement, all references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States in provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall be understood as including the United Kingdom and its competent authorities, except as regards:

 

(a) the nomination, appointment or election of members of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, as well as the participation in the decision-making and the attendance in the meetings of the institutions;

 

(b) the participation in the decision-making and governance of the bodies, offices and agencies of the Union"

 

Why does it say that?  Because this withdrawal agreement causes certain provisions of EU law to continue to be applicable in the UK for a transition period.  Most of those provisions of EU law refer to the Member States and to the competent authorities.  Under Article 50, the definition of Member States will no longer legally include the UK after 29 March 2019.  That means - surprise, surprise, that the laws will no longer apply.  So if you want a transition period where those laws apply, you have to have a treaty agreement that temporarily puts the UK back into the definition of Member States for the purposes of the agreement.  The only other alternative would have been to write a long, complicated and easily screwed-up text listing all the areas where the law would be effectively regarding as applying to the Member States (plus the UK).

 

However, that excludes appointment to the decision-making bodies of the Union, because the British government has agreed that the UK should not be making appointments to those bodies.

 

If that's the tone of the very first criticism of the agreement - i.e. based on a lie - then I don't plan to bother my arse filleting the other 39.

 

Legislation is tough work, and especially tough when it involves an international agreement that has cross-references to other legislation and treaties.  But that's no excuse.  If someone is going to make claims that an agreement is in some way "toxic", the least that person should do is make an effort to understand what they are criticising.  If they don't, that's because they are being either malicious or stupid.  And if you want to make good decisions, you should avoid taking advice from the malicious and the stupid.

[Statts1976uk]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

That's a lie, and is a classic example of why people should read original sources rather than relying on second-hand reports.

 

First of all it's not Article 6 (that was in a March 2018 draft), it's Article 7.  Secondly, what Article 7 actually says is:

 

"For the purposes of this Agreement, all references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States in provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall be understood as including the United Kingdom and its competent authorities, except as regards:

 

(a) the nomination, appointment or election of members of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, as well as the participation in the decision-making and the attendance in the meetings of the institutions;

 

(b) the participation in the decision-making and governance of the bodies, offices and agencies of the Union"

 

Why does it say that?  Because this withdrawal agreement causes certain provisions of EU law to continue to be applicable in the UK for a transition period.  Most of those provisions of EU law refer to the Member States and to the competent authorities.  Under Article 50, the definition of Member States will no longer legally include the UK after 29 March 2019.  That means - surprise, surprise, that the laws will no longer apply.  So if you want a transition period where those laws apply, you have to have a treaty agreement that temporarily puts the UK back into the definition of Member States for the purposes of the agreement.  The only other alternative would have been to write a long, complicated and easily screwed-up text listing all the areas where the law would be effectively regarding as applying to the Member States (plus the UK).

 

However, that excludes appointment to the decision-making bodies of the Union, because the British government has agreed that the UK should not be making appointments to those bodies.

 

If that's the tone of the very first criticism of the agreement - i.e. based on a lie - then I don't plan to bother my arse filleting the other 39.

 

Legislation is tough work, and especially tough when it involves an international agreement that has cross-references to other legislation and treaties.  But that's no excuse.  If someone is going to make claims that an agreement is in some way "toxic", the least that person should do is make an effort to understand what they are criticising.  If they don't, that's because they are being either malicious or stupid.  And if you want to make good decisions, you should avoid taking advice from the malicious and the stupid.

 

Hence why you’ll see in a later post of mine a link to actual document so people can make up their own minds.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Statts1976uk

[shaun.lawson]

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Statts1976uk said:

It certainly has been an eye opener and I do apologise about posting such a long article. I can’t find any concessions that favour the UK.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

 

 

 

 

I thought the interesting trade-off in this was between the treatment of goods and services and the treatment of people.

 

In general terms, the UK is getting to be a bit more independent about how it treats EU citizens for residency and employment, in return for having a bit more "friction" in trade. 

 

However in order to ensure that no hard border can emerge on this island, the UK would remain in a common customs area with the EU - unless a better solution was agreed, which it might be.

 

But while that common customs area puts restrictions on the UK in the area of goods and services, it doesn't seem to prevent the UK from exercising more authority to control movement of people.

 

For example, EU citizens can continue to travel freely to the UK, and they have fairly flexible employment rights up to a point, but they have to be resident for five years to claim the right to live permanently in the UK (it's the same the other way around).  That is the kind of control over inward migration mixed with giving residency rights to "long-standing residents" that Theresa May mentioned.

 

Given how important inward migration was to Leave voters, I would have thought that this was the biggest single gain that the UK got from the negotiations, and the government should make a better fist of explaining this to people in straightforward language.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Essentially because no deal is a catastrophe for us and the EU doesn't want a basket case in the north of Europe on its hands.

 

 

I've said it already - no deal is not good for you, and not good for us, but there are no disasters here.  The country most exposed to economic difficulty in the event of a hard Brexit is Ireland, and we already have contingency plans for that.

[Unknown user]

It sunk in with me today that by April I probably won't be able to freely return to a country I lived in for the last decade. Even though I've earned there, bought and sold property there, paid into their tax system for ten years and still have a legitimate social security number, the right to go back there freely is being taken away from me and my Mrs. 

That's fairly pish. 

[Ulysses]

38 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Unless the Agreement passes muster, Hard Brexit which carries risk for all parties. 

 

It would be, er, faintly amusing if the UK were to seek an extension, and the "unelected and unaccountable" EU was to agree, only for it to be stopped by a veto from say Latvia, or Malta.

[Ulysses]

16 minutes ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

Hence why you’ll see in a later post of mine a link to actual document so people can make up their own minds.

 

I was more hoping that you'd make up yours.  Just saying. 

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It sunk in with me today that by April I probably won't be able to freely return to a country I lived in for the last decade. Even though I've earned there, bought and sold property there, paid into their tax system for ten years and still have a legitimate social security number, the right to go back there freely is being taken away from me and my Mrs. 

That's fairly pish. 

 

In fairness, Smithee, that's not a failure of the negotiations, it's a failure of the vote in the first place.

 

Those who voted leave completely missed a point in all of this.  They can put on their best Mockney accents and their best Victor Meldrew affronted tones and complain about how they didn't want to be ruled by Brussels, but what they forget is that they got to do a little bit of ruling Belgium.  And Ireland.  And Malta.  And Germany.  And Sweden.  And Lithuania.

 

That is how pooled sovereignty works.  Ireland gives up a little bit of its sovereign independence, and lets the rest of the EU have a degree of influence over us, in return for which Ireland gets a little share in how the EU influences all the other countries.

 

If you don't get it you won't like it.  But if you get it then you realise that it is a not half bad way to run a continent.

 

What is sadder is that Britain has been one of the best at the art.  The British have brought great pragmatism and common sense to European politics and governance, but not lately and not now.

[The Mighty Thor]

The intrepid 5 do realise that the EU have said it's take it or leave it?

 

Oh and on another point 'The Times' front page? WTF? Surely there can't be that many people of any level of cognitive function who genuinely think that this is nothing other than a cluster**** of our own grand design?

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

In fairness, Smithee, that's not a failure of the negotiations, it's a failure of the vote in the first place.

 

Those who voted leave completely missed a point in all of this.  They can put on their best Mockney accents and their best Victor Meldrew affronted tones and complain about how they didn't want to be ruled by Brussels, but what they forget is that they got to do a little bit of ruling Belgium.  And Ireland.  And Malta.  And Germany.  And Sweden.  And Lithuania.

 

That is how pooled sovereignty works.  Ireland gives up a little bit of its sovereign independence, and lets the rest of the EU have a degree of influence over us, in return for which Ireland gets a little share in how the EU influences all the other countries.

 

If you don't get it you won't like it.  But if you get it then you realise that it is a not half bad way to run a continent.

 

What is sadder is that Britain has been one of the best at the art.  The British have brought great pragmatism and common sense to European politics and governance, but not lately and not now.

 

I feel let down by both to be honest, but the vote to leave was indeed particularly dismaying.

[Thunderstruck]

43 minutes ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

Hence why you’ll see in a later post of mine a link to actual document so people can make up their own minds.

 

If one was to have read Steerpike’s article in isolation, one could be excused for wondering why the Withdrawal Agreement wasn’t given to the U.K. in a railway carriage in a French forest.  

 

Mr Steerpike does seem to have taken a narrow and pessimistic view of the Agreement but balance was provided by the Spectator and that should be read. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Thunderstruck

[Statts1976uk]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I was more hoping that you'd make up yours.  Just saying. 

 

I’m ploughing through both documents just now, I do think though on first impressions that what has been negotiated so far is a bad deal and maybe the no deal scenario would be preferable.

 

I don’t think they’ll be a second referendum and personally I also think May will survive a leadership challenge but will call a GE after Brexit Day.

 

Have you read the entire 585 pages yet, it’s very dry for a Saturday night!!!

Edited November 18, 2018 by Statts1976uk

[Brighton Jambo]

1 hour ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

I’m ploughing through both documents just now, I do think though on first impressions that what has been negotiated so far is a bad deal and maybe the no deal scenario would be preferable.

 

I don’t think they’ll be a second referendum and personally I also think May will survive a leadership challenge but will call a GE after Brexit Day.

 

Have you read the entire 585 pages yet, it’s very dry for a Saturday night!!!

Can I ask why you think it’s a bad deal, genuine question not having a pop!

 

I have only seen a summary but I thought the end to free movement, exit from common fisheries/agricultural policy, end of ECJ oversight, remaining in customs union would have pleased many people who wanted to leave.