Brexit process

Post by **adam2** » 08 Dec 2017, 09:19

This looks to me as though we are staying in the EU, in all but name.

"Ever closer union" being replaced with ever closer "alignment"

No proper border and therefore no control on immigration, the new route no doubt being via the Irish republic, Northern Ireland and then to the mainland UK. Instead of Calais and Dover. Though of course it could be argued that cross channel border checks will be redundant if they can be avoided by going via Ireland.

The rights of EU citizens to be upheld, so we still wont be able to deport foreign born criminals.

Post by **clv101** » 08 Dec 2017, 09:39

johnhemming2 wrote:
clv101 wrote:It seems 'sufficient progress' has been made... with the whole of the UK remaining committed to full alignment with the rules of the customs union and the single market!
Until such a stage as a resolution to the NI/Ireland hard border issue is found.

Which, as Vince Cable said this morning, is unlikely this century!

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Dec 2017, 10:02

So...more fudge, anyone?

This fight is not over. I think what has happened is that the EU/Ireland realised that unless they allowed a fudge through, they'd get a no-deal hard brexit instead.

I am still trying to understand this (just got out of bed) but if it means "we are staying in the EU in all but name" then the tory party is about to descend into outright civil war.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Dec 2017, 10:26

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fint ... -1.3320096

Letâ€™s not understate the import of what Ireland has just achieved. It has not just secured an outcome that minimises the damage of Brexit on this island. It has radically altered the trajectory of Brexit itself, pushing that crazy careering vehicle away from its path towards the cliff edge. This saga has taken many strange turns, but this is the strangest of all: after one of the most fraught fortnights in the recent history of Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland has just done Britain a favour of historic dimensions. It has saved it from the madness of a hard Brexit. There is a great irony here: the problem that the Brexiteers most relentlessly ignored has come to determine the entire shape of their project. By standing firm against their attempts to bully, cajole and blame it, Ireland has shifted Brexit towards a soft outcome. It is now far more likely that Britain will stay in the customs union and the single market. It is also more likely that Brexit will not in fact happen.

Well, the Irish certainly think this is guarantees a soft brexit and maybe no brexit at all.

If this analysis is correct, the Brexiteers in the tory party now have to make their move - they have to get rid of May and replace her with somebody who believes in Brexit. Or admit they've lost.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Dec 2017, 10:29

DUP predicts major trouble ahead, says tory MPs will not accept the deal TM has just signed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 98681.html

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Dec 2017, 10:41

Posted on Conservative Home:

The terms of this agreement say that if there is no deal, Britain still need to pay the EU billions, remain under ECJ jurisdiction in some respects, and align our regulations in perpetuity with the EU's.

"No deal" has basically been taken off the table, meaning we are now at the mercy of a bad deal.

If this is true, then Theresa May has just totally f*cked up the future of this country. She has disabled our escape mechanism, leaving all the power in the hands of the EU. It is true, then Brexit has to be stopped.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Dec 2017, 10:58

It's all bullshit:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 90025.html

5. Under the caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the joint commitments set out below in this joint report shall be reflected in the Withdrawal Agreement in full detail.

That includes this "agreement". Therefore no deal is still possible ("nothing is agreed" = no deal, hard brexit).

43. The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border [on the island of Ireland], including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.

Weasel words supreme. Imagine you are agreeing a divorce and you say "Yes, I recall the day I said 'till death do us part'". Recalling that you made a commitment is not the same thing as re-affirming it. A hard border is still possible.

46. The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report.... must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom.

This one looks incomprehensible. How can "the commitments outlined in this report must be upheld in all circumstances" be consistent with "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"? But it is about avoiding contradictions in future deals rather than in the situation where there is no agreement on a future deal.

This is the humdinger though:

50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. 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.

Outright contradiction. How can "in the absence of agreed solutions then X" in paragraph 50 be compatible with "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"?

Logically it boils down to this:

1) If there is no agreement then nothing is agreed.
2) If there is no agreement then X is agreed.

1 & 2 cannot both be true at the same time, and yet both the EU and the UK have agreed to both of them.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Dec 2017, 12:38

UndercoverElephant wrote:Posted on Conservative Home:

The terms of this agreement say that if there is no deal, Britain still need to pay the EU billions, remain under ECJ jurisdiction in some respects, and align our regulations in perpetuity with the EU's.

"No deal" has basically been taken off the table, meaning we are now at the mercy of a bad deal.
If this is true, then Theresa May has just totally f*cked up the future of this country. She has disabled our escape mechanism, leaving all the power in the hands of the EU. It is true, then Brexit has to be stopped.

No

Brexit does not have to be stopped

Breixt must be f***ing carried out

Post by **clv101** » 08 Dec 2017, 13:29

UndercoverElephant wrote:Posted on Conservative Home:

The terms of this agreement say that if there is no deal, Britain still need to pay the EU billions, remain under ECJ jurisdiction in some respects, and align our regulations in perpetuity with the EU's.

"No deal" has basically been taken off the table, meaning we are now at the mercy of a bad deal.
If this is true, then Theresa May has just totally f*cked up the future of this country. She has disabled our escape mechanism, leaving all the power in the hands of the EU. It is true, then Brexit has to be stopped.

As I've always said 'no deal' was never even on the table. It was a nonsense. There will be a deal, it will land somewhere on the spectrum between bad and good... or a perpetual 'transition' period with little changing.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Dec 2017, 13:41

It's a fudge, and at the last moment it is the EU who has backed down. It has backed down on the ECJ, because any jurisdiction it has is limited to 8 years. And it has backed down in Ireland, because the clause "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" means that the entirety of the rest of the text is not a binding agreement.

At the end of the day it turns out that Theresa May's weakness is a strength. The EU, Ireland and the DUP all have the same basic problem: if Theresa May resigns or is ousted, she'd probably be replaced by somebody like Rees-Mogg who'd be more than happy to simply walk away with no deal at all and pay the EU nothing. And they knew that unless they agreed to move on to phase 2, TM's days were numbered.

"No deal" still is on the table, but it won't happen if TM remains PM.

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 08 Dec 2017, 13:44

clv101 wrote:It seems 'sufficient progress' has been made... with the whole of the UK remaining committed to full alignment with the rules of the customs union and the single market!

A miricale!

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 08 Dec 2017, 14:10

UndercoverElephant wrote:
The EU, Ireland and the DUP all have the same basic problem: if Theresa May resigns or is ousted, she'd probably be replaced by somebody like Rees-Mogg who'd be more than happy to simply walk away with no deal at all and pay the EU nothing. .

Yes Re Smug as UK PM would be very interesting but probably not in a useful way. IMHO he scarcely ticks any of the boxes when it comes to being wise, sane and competent. Seemingly a religious fanatic he probably also holds cornucopian beliefs in endless growth etc. He would probably go well with the Trump.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 09 Dec 2017, 06:14

He would probably go well with the Trump.

They can go to â€˜ell together............

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 09 Dec 2017, 07:09

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42291191

Voters can use the next general election to have their say on a final Brexit deal, Michael Gove has said.

The environment secretary praised Theresa May's "tenacity and skill" in securing a last-minute deal to end phase one negotiations on Friday.

But, writing in the Daily Telegraph, he said if British people "dislike the arrangement", they can change it.

Well, well, well. "Good on Theresa, but that deal she just struck at the last minute...the UK can unilaterally change it later!"

Should be interesting to see what Messrs Juncker and Barnier have to say about that.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 09 Dec 2017, 08:13

Potemkin Villager wrote:He would probably go well with the Trump.

He is quite different to Trump, but clearly is in the Thatcher tradition.