Brexit negotiations

Scott-Copywriter

Free Member
May 11, 2006
9,605
2,673
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46137594

But Mr Davis - who quit his cabinet role over the Brexit plan in July - said he believed defeat would prompt the UK and EU to agree a "better deal".

An interesting comment there. One of the arch-Brexiteers is steering clear of the idea of no deal, even in the event of the Chequers plan failing to pass.

It probably provides a good indication of the appetite of no deal in the Commons. If one of the most confident Brexiteers seems open to the negotiation phase being extended to revisit the deal, most other MPs will be as well (unless they want to use the opportunity to force the government into holding a second referendum).

Personally I think all this talk of no deal is one big bluff, and the chance of MPs, or the government, allowing it to happen is far less likely than they're trying to make out.
 
Upvote 0

Mr D

Free Member
Feb 12, 2017
28,915
3,627
Stirling
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46137594



An interesting comment there. One of the arch-Brexiteers is steering clear of the idea of no deal, even in the event of the Chequers plan failing to pass.

It probably provides a good indication of the appetite of no deal in the Commons. If one of the most confident Brexiteers seems open to the negotiation phase being extended to revisit the deal, most other MPs will be as well (unless they want to use the opportunity to force the government into holding a second referendum).

Personally I think all this talk of no deal is one big bluff, and the chance of MPs, or the government, allowing it to happen is far less likely than they're trying to make out.

Revisit the deal may be what our MPs want. Does the other side agree?
EU cannot do certain things, us wanting those things without other things is going to be ignored at best.
 
Upvote 0

Scott-Copywriter

Free Member
May 11, 2006
9,605
2,673
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46168194

I think he's bang on. While some members of the public are even hoping for no deal, in private I suspect that most politicians know that it would be too damaging to be allowed to happen, regardless of what the majority of people want (which, by the way, is not a no deal scenario anyway).

Read between the lines and it's fairly obvious. Take the Irish border. The Government is so committed to avoiding a hard border (as they should be) that they're prepared to accept numerous EU rules without any say in them. But a no deal situation would make the "hardness" of the border numerous times worse, so it's illogical that the Government would be trying this hard to avoid a border, but so willing to leave without a deal that would create an even harder border. What they're trying to do, and what they're saying they will do, couldn't be further apart.

Then we have other ramifications of a no deal scenario. That transition period will be gone. Businesses will end up having three months to prepare without fully understanding how they need to prepare. And why would they have spent the small fortune to prepare further in advance? May has been trying to bluff the EU while simultaneously telling businesses not to worry about a no deal scenario.

New customs systems? They aren't ready yet and won't be by March. What about the hundreds of thousands of Brits living abroad in the EU? What happens to them? And still, there's the big question mark over the Irish border. May has repeatedly said she's committed to no hard border, while a no deal outcome would make a hard border inevitable.

There's a clear attempt to scare MPs into accepting the deal out of fear of walking away without one. I'd suggest that most MPs are willing to vote against it with confidence that no deal is not realistically on the cards.
 
Upvote 0

Mr D

Free Member
Feb 12, 2017
28,915
3,627
Stirling
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46168194

I think he's bang on. While some members of the public are even hoping for no deal, in private I suspect that most politicians know that it would be too damaging to be allowed to happen, regardless of what the majority of people want (which, by the way, is not a no deal scenario anyway).

Read between the lines and it's fairly obvious. Take the Irish border. The Government is so committed to avoiding a hard border (as they should be) that they're prepared to accept numerous EU rules without any say in them. But a no deal situation would make the "hardness" of the border numerous times worse, so it's illogical that the Government would be trying this hard to avoid a border, but so willing to leave without a deal that would create an even harder border. What they're trying to do, and what they're saying they will do, couldn't be further apart.

Then we have other ramifications of a no deal scenario. That transition period will be gone. Businesses will end up having three months to prepare without fully understanding how they need to prepare. And why would they have spent the small fortune to prepare further in advance? May has been trying to bluff the EU while simultaneously telling businesses not to worry about a no deal scenario.

New customs systems? They aren't ready yet and won't be by March. What about the hundreds of thousands of Brits living abroad in the EU? What happens to them? And still, there's the big question mark over the Irish border. May has repeatedly said she's committed to no hard border, while a no deal outcome would make a hard border inevitable.

There's a clear attempt to scare MPs into accepting the deal out of fear of walking away without one. I'd suggest that most MPs are willing to vote against it with confidence that no deal is not realistically on the cards.


The risk is that we get to March and still have no deal in place. And plenty of MPs will vote against any deal simply because of who is in power at the moment.
Labour have said multiple times they will vote against any deal that doesn't meet their 6 requirements. Which are impossible to meet while leaving the EU.
While Corbyn may be used to people ignoring the party leadership when it comes to voting (as he did hundreds of times), how many of his MPs will vote against a TORY agreement?
Enough of the Conservative party are pretty rabid about the EU that there are risks that any deal is voted down.
OK, first time it happens we go back to the table to negotiate some more, new deal put together - then we vote against it again.
Then perhaps February we get something voted through.... and then Spanish government votes against it. Back to the negotiating table again.... and perhaps something satisfying the Spanish government is now unacceptable to some more MPs...

The problem we have isn't getting an agreement through parliament, its getting any agreement through all the parliaments!
 
Upvote 0

Scott-Copywriter

Free Member
May 11, 2006
9,605
2,673
I still maintain that it ain't gonna happen!

You may be right.

This, I feel, is an underestimated sticking point: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46170530

The EU wants a backstop that guarantees that, whatever happens, there's never a hard border on the island of Ireland. But the UK wants the power to unilaterally withdraw from that backstop.

That completely undermines the point of the backstop. Almost to a laughable level, actually. If you create a backup plan as a guarantee, but that backup plan is effectively optional, it's not a backup plan with a guarantee. It makes the whole thing pointless.

The differences of opinion on this between the two sides is alarming. It more or less amounts to whether the deal must have a legally-binding guarantee that prevents a hard border. One option is a true backstop in that regard. The other is merely a time allowance that guarantees zilch.

Unless there's a genius sat around the negotiating table that comes up with a way to objectively quantify when the backstop is no longer needed, I'm struggling to see how the two sides are going to agree something, never mind something that has a chance of passing through the UK and EU parliaments.
 
Upvote 0

JEREMY HAWKE

Business Member
  • Business Listing
    Mar 4, 2008
    8,612
    1
    4,051
    EXETER DEVON
    www.jeremyhawkecourier.co.uk
    Well that's easy, she has to go.

    I just hope Tory MPs will grow a backbone and do it.

    There will be a general election
    But then who will be the big chief ? Nobody is going to vote for Vince cable
    If you want to wear a big coat furry hat and drive around in the snow in a Lada then you know who to back

    If this goes to a no deal and it may do ! There will be no Conservative party !
     
    Upvote 0

    Gecko001

    Free Member
    Apr 21, 2011
    3,242
    580
    I still maintain that it ain't gonna happen!
    Last thing I remember, I was
    Running for the door
    I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
    'Relax' said the night man,
    'We are programmed to receive.
    You can check out any time you like,
    But you can never leave!'


    Maybe it will be that you can (try to) check out any time you like
    But you can never leave!
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: The Byre
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    According to the leak to the Times, the EU don't need more concessions from us. We are tied to their rules forever if we go ahead on the basis of this agreement.

    Well if one of the governments rejects the agreement then the deal is off. And back to negotiating table where any subsequent agreement may be worse in one way or another.
    Give and take people often forget has 2 parts.
     
    Upvote 0

    Gecko001

    Free Member
    Apr 21, 2011
    3,242
    580
    To go back to basics. The EU does not have to do anything. It is their club. They make the rules for membership and they make the rules for leaving. Only an intervention from a big player from the EU27 will change that. There seems to be no such big player coming forward.
     
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    To go back to basics. The EU does not have to do anything. It is their club. They make the rules for membership and they make the rules for leaving. Only an intervention from the big player from the EU27 will change that. There seems to be no such big player coming forward.

    The rules for leaving? Were we not involved in the making of that?
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    To go back to basics. The EU does not have to do anything. It is their club. They make the rules for membership and they make the rules for leaving. Only an intervention from a big player from the EU27 will change that. There seems to be no such big player coming forward.
    At present this should read:

    "The EU does not have to do anything. It is our club. We make the rules for membership and we make the rules for leaving. Since it's a rules-based democratic institution, an intervention from a big player from the EU27 won't change the rules we all must follow."
     
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    Are you suggesting that the UK call and Extraordinary meeting of the 28 EU countries and get them to change the rules just because we helped to make the rules. If the other 27 countries refuse, we could say that we thought the rules were for others and not for us.

    Eh?
    In what way would you think I suggested that?

    To go back to basics. The EU does not have to do anything. It is their club. They make the rules for membership and they make the rules for leaving. Only an intervention from a big player from the EU27 will change that. There seems to be no such big player coming forward.

    That's what I was replying to.
    We are in the EU currently and have been for some time.

    Cannot exactly have a go at EU over rules we agreed to and according to KM-Tiger one of our guys wrote!
     
    Upvote 0
    You can check out any time you like,
    But you can never leave!'
    The very moment someone said that we aught to leave the EU, those were the words that sprang to my mind! That, I said to myself, is the reality.

    I was about 16 or 17 when we joined and even then, it seemed so obvious that this was a irreversible move.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm as European as it gets. I would even do away with national governments and local nationalities altogether. The 20th Century showed us where national governments and silly little ideas about being British, German or French really leads in the long run. The EU was set up to prevent that madness ever happening again!

    But the UK had an alternative after the War. It still had a Rolls Royce global trade and cultural infrastructure. You could study for UK A-Levels and a UK university degree almost anywhere on Planet Earth. Every consulate had a UK trade mission and we held UK trade events in every major economy every year. There were British libraries in almost every major city in the World. The BBC still had studios in every major city. Everywhere you went, the UK consulates and embassies were second only to the US in both size and importance. But that was back in the 60s.

    We threw all that away!

    We threw it away and threw our lot, our all in with the new project called The Common Market.

    Great! Being half German, I was all for it! Who cares about trade with Africa or India, when Germany and France are right on your doorstep? "Los gehts, machen wir!" and after the army, I was living and working in Germany - and earning waaay more money than any Brit in my position could have dreamt about!

    I once threw away a Mercedes O319 mini-bus that today would be worth about £50,000. I wish I had not done that, but had hung on to that bus - but I didn't! Like a native who throws away a black pearl worth more than his whole island, Britain threw away all those international links and goodwill, in exchange for Belgium cabbages and Danish bacon, rusty Renaults and leaking Fiats and visa-free holidays on the Costa del Vomit.

    But we are where we are. Like any good businessman, we must face realities and not live in a fantasy world of 'If Only!'

    This forum is filled with fools living in the world of 'If Only!' "If I only had this piece of equipment!' 'If only the landlord would agree to an extension!' 'If I only could get the funding!'

    As Ayn Rand said "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."

    The entire 'Leave' campaign seems built upon a foolish dream of 'If Only!'

    "If only we would leave, we could establish trade links with X, Y and Z!"

    "If only were were to leave, America would welcome us with open arms and give us all free access to her market!"

    Well, you can't! African kids no longer routinely sit UK A-Levels and study for an external degree from the LSE. Our trade missions in nearly all counties are gone. The BBC has closed most foreign studios and relies on stringers from Reuters. America, China and Japan are more important to Australia, NZ, Jamaica, India, Pakistan and Africa than some lost island off the West coast of Europe.

    Like my Mercedes mini-bus and that native's black pearl, we threw it all away.

    We're good at that. We threw away all our oil wealth. We threw away most of our excellent educational system. Every time we have something good, we throw it away! Now we are throwing away our membership of the EU. We exchanged our global reach and position in exchange for membership of the EU - and like Jack who went to market with a cow and came back with a handful of beans, we are throwing that too out of the window!

    So how's Brexit working out so far?

    Well, in 2007, the UK's GDP per capita was $51,000 and Ireland stood at a dizzy $61,000. Then came the banking crash and those figures fell to $39,000 and $49,000 respectively. By the time the Brexit referendum was announced, the UK's GDP per capita had recovered to $47,000.

    Today the Republic of Ireland has a GDP per capita of c.a. $70,000, one of the highest in the EU.

    The UK has just $40,000. Some of the regions are almost half that. If we had kept pace with Ireland, we would have a GDP per capita of $59,000.

    Those figures are what Edgar Allen Poe called "The exquisite horror of reality!"
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Gecko001
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    The very moment someone said that we aught to leave the EU, those were the words that sprang to my mind! That, I said to myself, is the reality.

    I was about 16 or 17 when we joined and even then, it seemed so obvious that this was a irreversible move.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm as European as it gets. I would even do away with national governments and local nationalities altogether. The 20th Century showed us where national governments and silly little ideas about being British, German or French really leads in the long run. The EU was set up to prevent that madness ever happening again!

    But the UK had an alternative after the War. It still had a Rolls Royce global trade and cultural infrastructure. You could study for UK A-Levels and a UK university degree almost anywhere on Planet Earth. Every consulate had a UK trade mission and we held UK trade events in every major economy every year. There were British libraries in almost every major city in the World. The BBC still had studios in every major city. Everywhere you went, the UK consulates and embassies were second only to the US in both size and importance. But that was back in the 60s.

    We threw all that away!

    We threw it away and threw our lot, our all in with the new project called The Common Market.

    Great! Being half German, I was all for it! Who cares about trade with Africa or India, when Germany and France are right on your doorstep? "Los gehts, machen wir!" and after the army, I was living and working in Germany - and earning waaay more money than any Brit in my position could have dreamt about!

    I once threw away a Mercedes O319 mini-bus that today would be worth about £50,000. I wish I had not done that, but had hung on to that bus - but I didn't! Like a native who throws away a black pearl worth more than his whole island, Britain threw away all those international links and goodwill, in exchange for Belgium cabbages and Danish bacon, rusty Renaults and leaking Fiats and visa-free holidays on the Costa del Vomit.

    But we are where we are. Like any good businessman, we must face realities and not live in a fantasy world of 'If Only!'

    This forum is filled with fools living in the world of 'If Only!' "If I only had this piece of equipment!' 'If only the landlord would agree to an extension!' 'If I only could get the funding!'

    As Ayn Rand said "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."

    The entire 'Leave' campaign seems built upon a foolish dream of 'If Only!'

    "If only we would leave, we could establish trade links with X, Y and Z!"

    "If only were were to leave, America would welcome us with open arms and give us all free access to her market!"

    Well, you can't! African kids no longer routinely sit UK A-Levels and study for an external degree from the LSE. Our trade missions in nearly all counties are gone. The BBC has closed most foreign studios and relies on stringers from Reuters. America, China and Japan are more important to Australia, NZ, Jamaica, India, Pakistan and Africa than some lost island off the West coast of Europe.

    Like my Mercedes mini-bus and that native's black pearl, we threw it all away.

    We're good at that. We threw away all our oil wealth. We threw away most of our excellent educational system. Every time we have something good, we throw it away! Now we are throwing away our membership of the EU. We exchanged our global reach and position in exchange for membership of the EU - and like Jack who went to market with a cow and came back with a handful of beans, we are throwing that too out of the window!

    So how's Brexit working out so far?

    Well, in 2007, the UK's GDP per capita was $51,000 and Ireland stood at a dizzy $61,000. Then came the banking crash and those figures fell to $39,000 and $49,000 respectively. By the time the Brexit referendum was announced, the UK's GDP per capita had recovered to $47,000.

    Today the Republic of Ireland has a GDP per capita of c.a. $70,000, one of the highest in the EU.

    The UK has just $40,000. Some of the regions are almost half that. If we had kept pace with Ireland, we would have a GDP per capita of $59,000.

    Those figures are what Edgar Allen Poe called "The exquisite horror of reality!"


    Darn glad the BBC shut their overseas offices.
    Why pay for big expensive offices and a multitude of staff in each location when half the time the story and film can be purchased by someone else at the scene already?
    The way the world used to work is not the way the world works now. Rather than someone getting their very expensive camera out and heading out with a team to the story then send the tape in to the head office, instead people on the scene can sell to multiple buyers the same interview, the same story and it be uploaded / downloaded direct.


    The world moves on. The UK voters decided to vote a particular way in the referendum - a referendum promised by more than one government over the years.
    The government then decided to stick to the results of that referendum.

    Much to the annoyance of some.

    We now have a draft agreement, something we've been demanding for a while.

    The text of the agreement will be available soon enough and we can tear it apart, make jokes about the content, say what should be done different and so on. A few hundred pages long, maybe a fraction of a percent of the voters will read it.
    The media will of course educate everyone on particular aspects, glossing over other aspects and catering to the particular tastes of the customers.
    Which isn't the same as the reality.

    Based on not reading it there appears to be a considerable amount of hostility to it.
    Perhaps we should read it first, those of us who can bother to do so and time to do it?
     
    Upvote 0

    Gecko001

    Free Member
    Apr 21, 2011
    3,242
    580
    The Byre

    I get your point. The UK seems to be very reckless. Other countries hold referendums on particular laws, or minor constitutional issues, while on the other hand the UK seems to have referendums on matters which could break it up if the result goes a particular way. Other countries play tiddly winks and the UK play Russian roulette.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    The Byre

    I get your point. The UK seems to be very reckless. Other countries hold referendums on particular laws, or minor constitutional issues, while on the other hand the UK seems to have referendums on matters which could break it up if the result goes a particular way. Other countries play tiddly winks and the UK play Russian roulette.

    In a recent survey 5 out of 6 players in a game of Russian Roulette enjoyed the game.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    The Byre

    I get your point. The UK seems to be very reckless. Other countries hold referendums on particular laws, or minor constitutional issues, while on the other hand the UK seems to have referendums on matters which could break it up if the result goes a particular way. Other countries play tiddly winks and the UK play Russian roulette.

    Interesting point:

    The Good Friday Agreement was put in place as a result of a Constitutional Referendum which required a supermajority and was thus sanctioned into law.

    The EU referendum 2016 was advisory and required no supermajority or other safeguards since it was entirely non-binding.

    Our current government (i.e. one not bound by the government that held the EU referendum) is choosing to sacrifice the former to implement the latter.
     
    Upvote 0

    Gecko001

    Free Member
    Apr 21, 2011
    3,242
    580
    Interesting point:

    The Good Friday Agreement was put in place as a result of a Constitutional Referendum which required a supermajority and was thus sanctioned into law.

    The EU referendum 2016 was advisory and required no supermajority or other safeguards since it was entirely non-binding.

    Our current government (i.e. one not bound by the government that held the EU referendum) is choosing to sacrifice the former to implement the latter.
    The Good Friday agreement was and is full of ambiguity. So much so that it is almost dead now. It formed the Stormont Assembly which has not met for nearly two years. It also formed various cross border inter-governmental associations which have never really had any teeth and have been mainly talking shops.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab resigns over EU agreement
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46219495

    I've been hearing whispers for a week or so that Raab is in favour of a "No Deal" outcome, but it seemed rather odd bearing in mind he's the one attempting to negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement. Remember, "No Deal" doesn't have to be ratified by Parliament, it's the default outcome if nothing happens.

    GBP just took a small hit and I think that backs up the point that Raab and his extremist colleagues simply want to hit 29th March with as little done as possible, no matter the damage it does to the rest of the country.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    The Good Friday agreement was and is full of ambiguity. So much so that it is almost dead now. It formed the Stormont Assembly which has not met for nearly two years. It also formed various cross border inter-governmental associations which have never really had any teeth and have been mainly talking shops.
    The GFA is a legal agreement put in place by a legally binding referendum that was overwhelmingly supported in its outcome.

    "Brexit" is a political decision being carried out by choice as a result of a non-binding advisory referendum that was split almost 50/50 and occurred under a different government.

    These are the facts. The rest is simply your opinion on the success and efficacy of the GFA.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Gecko001

    Free Member
    Apr 21, 2011
    3,242
    580
    The GFA is a legal agreement put in place by a legally binding referendum that was overwhelmingly supported in its outcome.

    "Brexit" is a political decision being carried out by choice as a result of a non-binding advisory referendum that was split almost 50/50 and occurred under a different government.

    These are the facts. The rest is simply your opinion on the success and efficacy of the GFA.

    Are you disputing that the Stormont Assembly has not met for nearly two years?
     
    Upvote 0

    KM-Tiger

    Free Member
    Aug 10, 2003
    10,346
    1
    2,893
    Bexley, Kent
    rather odd bearing in mind he's the one attempting to negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.
    It's becoming clearer that it wasn't him negotiating anything, nor DD before him. It's reported that he saw the full text of the withdrawal agreement for the first time at cabinet yesterday.

    Brexit issues aside, this does raise questions as to how we are governed and is our govt truly accountable to voters.
     
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    It's becoming clearer that it wasn't him negotiating anything, nor DD before him. It's reported that he saw the full text of the withdrawal agreement for the first time at cabinet yesterday.

    Brexit issues aside, this does raise questions as to how we are governed and is our govt truly accountable to voters.

    Sorry, thought you knew.
    You are governed by a bunch of unelected civil servants.
    We have a system whereby policy is made by particular ministers usually belonging to the current party in power. And we have laws that are voted on by the relevant elected officials.
    Day to day governing though isn't elected officials and you won't usually deal with the elected official overseeing a particular group of the government.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles

    Join UK Business Forums for free business advice