Brexit deal

[Axholme Lion]

I thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?

You are right BB. Everrone I know who voted Leave voted to do just that. Leave without all this negotiation. A clean break.
Now that some of them have realised that this would be a disaster they have changed their minds.
Only a second vote will sort this out.

So how many times will we be voting?
Will we have another referendum if ref 2 results in staying in and then when the dust settles the country realises it has made has made a BIG mistake?

[MachoMadness]

You can't leave a f**king phone contract without lengthy negotiations and a fee to pay. Why on earth would anyone think an entire country could just up and leave a decades-old trading bloc with thousands of complex rules, regulations, and trade deals in place - without first settling all the commitments we've previously agreed to? Anyone who says they don't understand this either genuinely doesn't understand it or does understand it and is lying to you, but either way, they've forfeited their seat at the grown-up discussion table.

[albie]

Well, now that the Grieve amendment has given the HoC the right to decide on any changes after the May deal is voted down, then Hard Brexit/No Deal are off the agenda.

The numbers are not there, something May should have taken into account long ago.

So it will either be a modified deal (Norway Plus etc), or remain.....in response to a vote in a new referendum or a GE.

I can't see any other outcome, now that the published legal advice is that the backstop could be indefinite. Will the Dupsters ever go for that?

[tommy toes]

If it's made clear prior to the vote that this one is final and binding on this issue then hopefully it will concentrate people's minds and at least we'll get the result from an informed position, whatever the outcome.

[Herbert Anchovy]

I thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?

Same here BB. I voted to leave and, while I knew we’d have to pay something, I thought that we’d then just walk away. My suspicions were raised when, immediately after the result was announced, the EU forbid any other member state to begin trade talks with the UK, despite a number of countries wanting to begin their own trade negotiations immediately.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB/AL/HA

I'm not sure who you were listening to during the Referendum when you reckon no-one was talking about deals and conditions.

The Leave campaign consistently talked about deals and agreements.
Here's Chris Grayling talking about "formal negotiations leading to a new UK-EU treaty", the week before the vote
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.html

Here's a whole string of them telling us how a Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, EEA deal would be grand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

Here's Farage still talking about a deal six months AFTER the referendum before he decided that No Deal was actually what he meant.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/farage-predicts-norwegian-style-deal-for-britain-post-brexit

I'm guessing they all realised that deals come with conditions. Shame they didn't make that clear to Leave voters, eh?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Farage's farrago kind of makes the point that I was making further up the thread.

Brexit wasn't a single thing. It was a convenient umbrella to cover everything and anyone who had any complaints or misgivings about the EU.

It was NEVER clear before the referendum whether a Leave vote was supporting No Deal, Canada+ deal (actually, that was never mentioned during the campaign - Rees-Mogg and the ERG seem to have come up with it about a year ago), Norway deal, Switzerland deal, Norway+, Switzerland+, Free Trade Agreement, leaving the political aspects of the EU but staying in the CU and SM, taying in the CU but not the SM, staying in the SM but not the CU. Etc, etc etc.

Farage regularly talked about a Norway deal during the campaign. Then he stopped talking about it when someone pointed out that Norway has freedom of movement. Then he started talking about it again after the vote. Then he stopped and started talking about a No Deal Brexit.

No one can put their hand on their heart and say that they KNEW what a Leave vote was going to result in. They can say what THEY wanted, but they cannot possibly say what the other 17m wanted. Because the very people who led the campaign that took us into this shit storm didn't know, and have regularly changed their minds since the vote.

So, as I say, Brexit wasn't a single thing.

NOW we have some idea of what Brexit might mean.

It's a deal that leaves us tied into many of the structures of the EU but insulated from the very worst economic consequences.

Or it's a No Deal that every reasonable economist says will lose us a LOT of wealth, and which will tear up the Good Friday Agreement unless Boris and co can find the magic technology that means the Irish border won't be a problem.

But here's the thing. No way on earth did a majority of people in June 2016 vote for either of those outcomes.

So choosing one of them will be an utterly undemocratic decision. It will impose an outcome that the majority of the UK didn't vote for and don't want.

If the No Deal supporters are so sure of themselves, put it to another referendum now.

No Deal or Remain.

See what the outcome will be.

[MachoMadness]

If it's made clear prior to the vote that this one is final and binding on this issue then hopefully it will concentrate people's minds and at least we'll get the result from an informed position, whatever the outcome.

If it's a referendum, again, it shouldn't be binding. However Parliament will be a lot more comfortable with voting on reversing Article 50 as they know it won't plunge us into economic disaster. Or most of them will be, anyway.

[IDM]

I thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?

EXACTLY! It's not hard to understand is it?

And that highlights much of my point.. even people who voted leave aren’t going to get what they thought they would..  yes we would leave, but leave with conditions - conditions which we didn’t actually vote on.!!

[IDM]

It would have been ideal to have been able to vote for a clearly defined Brexit, don’t you think, regardless of whether you vote leave or stay.?

We will end up with a situation which satisfies no one..

Great idea it was to vote for a massive change when no one knew what it meant in reality, with no chance to reverse or reinforce the original outcome..  where’s the democracy in that.?

My argument isn’t about leave or remain, it’s about having clarity..  a vote on the deal or a 2nd referendum may give a larger leave majority but at least that would be on the grounds of more realistic information..

As far as I remember the referendum was clear enough, leave or remain?
Definition of leave:A1 [ I or T ] to go away from someone or something, for a short time or permanently:

I'll be leaving at five o'clock tomorrow.

He left the house by the back door.

She left the group of people she was with and came over to speak to us.

The bus leaves in five minutes.

Don’t be daft..

A more suitable analogy of the use of “leave” to compare with the brexit referendum would be to say that:

Should I leave my job at the end of the month or not? I don’t have a job lined up and I have a mortgage and all sorts of financial commitments.. should I take a risk of having no income or stay with what I have.??

I have been in that situation and believe me, stay in with what you know and with what you have is the better option.!

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.

Clear enough was it?

So why were all those Leave supporters talking about different sorts of deals and negotiations? Can you find ANY prominent Leave supporter from 2016 who said back then that the leave they wanted was for us to leave without a deal on future relations between us and Europe?

[Bentley Bullet]

You can't leave a f**king phone contract without lengthy negotiations and a fee to pay.

I've never had much trouble leaving a phone contract, and I've never had one tell me that I can't get a contract from other companies unless I agree to their contract severance demands.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. Of course I expected some form of settlement figure, but I thought any future dealings with the EU would have been sorted after we left, and not used by the EU as a bargaining tool.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

I think you're not getting this concept of deals.

We want a deal, right. A deal. Not dealing. A deal. That's an agreement where we get something. Something good. Something that we want. Like buying ad selling stuff with Europe, without lots of faffing about. That's what we want.

But we don't want to be part of the club where they have agreed the rules and procedures about how to do all that without faffing about.

Now, you no what happens to people who say "I want! I want! I want!" but don't give anything back? Yes. They don't get.

So, those people in Europe are saying, if you want all the nice good things, we'll need you to be good boys and girls and agree to all these rules.

Otherwise you can f**k off and look after yourselves and see how you get on. Like Mr Farage and Mr Rees-Mogg and Mr Trump and Mr Putin say you should do.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, I think the EU is trying to stop us from f**king off by refusing to let other willing EU countries do deals with us.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well, see, all the other EU countries have this thing called the Customs Unions and this other thing called the Single Market, that they signed up to because it helps them to trade with each other.

And those countries have all, of their own free will, agreed that they will not, individually, sign trade deals with any country outside the SM and CU. Because that would mean that the CU and SM would be pointless and they would lose all the benefits of being in the CU and SM.

Are you suggesting that the situation is really, really unfair to us, because the countries of Europe have declined to let the SM and CU fall apart to accommodate the wish of certain Brexiters to be able to cut deals with individual EU countries?

I'm sure you're not saying that, because that would be utterly childish and you're not utterly childish. But in that case, I haven't got a scooby what you are saying.

[Bentley Bullet]

I am saying that I think other EU countries would love to trade with us after we leave if they were allowed to.

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA. On the same topic, I think you've got a bit of a misunderstanding going on when you say "...immediately after the result was announced, the EU forbid any other member state to begin trade talks with the UK, despite a number of countries wanting to begin their own trade negotiations immediately."

Countries that are members of the CU and SM could not unilaterally have trade negotiations with us. That's the whole point of the CU and SM. You cede your power to make individual deals with third countries and in return you get the huge benefit of unrestricted trade with 450million of the wealthiest people who have ever lived, right on your doorstep.

If France, say, decided that they wanted to do an individual deal with Brazil, say, on terms that were not the same as the agreement that the EU has with Brazil, that would bring the whole CU and SM down. Because then France would be an entrepot for goods that weren't SM compliant, and France would be unilaterally making deals that gave them preferential terms on things like tarrifs, compared with how the rest of the EU could trade with Brazil.

So, if you are in a CU and SM, you CANNOT make trade deals with other countries.

So, there was never any question of EU countries INDIVIDUALLY making deals with the UK, wanting to do so or being stopped from doing so.

The thing you are talking about was something different. The UK negotiators, led by Davies, wanted to have individual discussions with the Govts of the EU countries on what the terms of the deal between the UK and the EU should be. There's a phrase for that. It's called "divide and rule". offer each country something in order for them to push behind the scenes to get the EU negotiators to give us a deal where we got all the benefits but none of the constraints of membership of the CU and SM.

But is WE got that, then, understandably, every other country would want that deal.

But if EVERY country got that deal, then the SM and CU and all their benefits would cease to exist.

So ALL the EU countries agreed that they would not have unilateral discussions with us. because they saw where it would lead. They agreed that the negotiations would be between the UK and the EU countries COLLECTIVELY represented by EU negotiators.

I'm genuinely baffled why you think that is some sort of nefarious action.

[wilts rover]

I am saying that I think other EU countries would love to trade with us after we leave if they were allowed to.

That's also what David Davies thought until he was put right too. Because they are not. And they can't.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

Do you REALLY not get this concept that membership of a club comes with conditions and restrictions as well as benefits? The EU countries have FREELY given up the right to make trade deals independently, for the benefit of having entirely unrestricted trade with each other.

If EU countries wanted to make independent trade deals with us, they could do so easily. By leaving the EU, the CU and the SM. there is absolutely nothing stopping them. Apart from the knowledge that they'd be cutting their own economic throats.

[DonnyOsmond]

AL

As numerous people have noted, that was the problem with the Referendum in 2016..

Leave was a single, well defined outcome.

Leave was an umbrella term that covered dozens of potential outcomes.

There was never and there still isn't anything remotely close to a majority for a No Deal Brexit. That was barely even discussed in 2016 and it certainly wasn't advocated by the Leave campaign.

Leaving on those terms would be the ultimate perversion of the Referendum result.

No need to worry though agent May has done a cracking job of creating such a rotten deal that we will probably end up staying in, either officially or by any other name. More decades of misery and serfdom to come...

That's it though, you can't call it a bad deal from May if you wanted to leave without specifying the kind of leave you wanted. May has given you leave, accept her leave and move on.

[Bentley Bullet]

I think, for what my unqualified guess is worth, that The EU is making an example of us because they fear that if we get a fair deal other countries would want a referendum on their membership.

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA

The benefit is that we have unfettered access to the biggest and richest economic market in world history.

That's how things work. You choose ceding a certain amount of choice for the economic benefits.

And that's before you factor in what a right-wing Govt would do in this country if it was entirely free to make its own political decisions. On stuff like working conditions. Holiday pay. Maternity leave. Environmental regulations. Etc etc.

Billy,

So you’re saying that the UK doesn’t benefit from political interference from the EU, however it’s the price we pay for economic trade?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

So you just ignore everything I've just written then?

What is it that is UNfair about the deal that we have got?

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA. On the same topic, I think you've got a bit of a misunderstanding going on when you say "...immediately after the result was announced, the EU forbid any other member state to begin trade talks with the UK, despite a number of countries wanting to begin their own trade negotiations immediately."

Countries that are members of the CU and SM could not unilaterally have trade negotiations with us. That's the whole point of the CU and SM. You cede your power to make individual deals with third countries and in return you get the huge benefit of unrestricted trade with 450million of the wealthiest people who have ever lived, right on your doorstep.

If France, say, decided that they wanted to do an individual deal with Brazil, say, on terms that were not the same as the agreement that the EU has with Brazil, that would bring the whole CU and SM down. Because then France would be an entrepot for goods that weren't SM compliant, and France would be unilaterally making deals that gave them preferential terms on things like tarrifs, compared with how the rest of the EU could trade with Brazil.

So, if you are in a CU and SM, you CANNOT make trade deals with other countries.

So, there was never any question of EU countries INDIVIDUALLY making deals with the UK, wanting to do so or being stopped from doing so.

The thing you are talking about was something different. The UK negotiators, led by Davies, wanted to have individual discussions with the Govts of the EU countries on what the terms of the deal between the UK and the EU should be. There's a phrase for that. It's called "divide and rule". offer each country something in order for them to push behind the scenes to get the EU negotiators to give us a deal where we got all the benefits but none of the constraints of membership of the CU and SM.

But is WE got that, then, understandably, every other country would want that deal.

But if EVERY country got that deal, then the SM and CU and all their benefits would cease to exist.

So ALL the EU countries agreed that they would not have unilateral discussions with us. because they saw where it would lead. They agreed that the negotiations would be between the UK and the EU countries COLLECTIVELY represented by EU negotiators.

I'm genuinely baffled why you think that is some sort of nefarious action.

Billy,

You’re right, I misunderstood this specific point.

However, what the EU did do is attempt to stop the U.K. from beginning trade negotiations with nations outside the EU. This is technically correct, but is it in the spirit of collaborative negotiation?

[wilts rover]

I thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?

EXACTLY! It's not hard to understand is it?

And that I am afraid is where you bought the lie. When/if we leave the EU we dont actually leave one thing. What we actually will do is break 759 international treaties that we have negotiated as an EU member and we will not now be a party to as an non-EU member. Unless and until we re-negotiate them as an individual member. I posted a link on the other thread to a fascinating talk I attended recently about this.

These treaties cover vast swathes of our life on topics such as:
aircraft movement
use of the channel tunnel
movement of radioactive material (x-ray plates and power station fuel)
movement of medicines
movement of animals
access to fishing grounds
landing of fish
recognition of driving licences
access to criminal databases

Leaving the EU without a deal doesn't mean trading on WTO terms, it means normal life will stop.

https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA

The benefit is that we have unfettered access to the biggest and richest economic market in world history.

That's how things work. You choose ceding a certain amount of choice for the economic benefits.

And that's before you factor in what a right-wing Govt would do in this country if it was entirely free to make its own political decisions. On stuff like working conditions. Holiday pay. Maternity leave. Environmental regulations. Etc etc.

Billy,

So you’re saying that the UK doesn’t benefit from political interference from the EU, however it’s the price we pay for economic trade?

HA

I'm saying that the UK cedes some of it's freedom to make its own decisions, for the benefit of greatly improved economic conditions.

That's the UK as an entity. You can call that "political interference" if you choose.

I'm also saying that individual working class people benefit massively from that "political interference" compared to what they would get in an alternative universe where a Tory Govt was free to decide on things like maternity pay, environmental conditions and everything else I listed. I know there's this argument from the Left that the EU's interference prevents us marching off to a socialist utopia. But as (I think) a left-leaning person, I'm sure you appreciate that there have been Tory Govts in this country for 29 of the 46 years since we joined the EEC/EC/EU.

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA.

No it did NOT stop us from conducting trade negotiations with countries outside the EU. What do you think Liam Foz has been jetting off round the world doing for the past 30 months?

What it stopped us from doing was SIGNING trade deals with other countries, whilever we were still members of the SM and CU. Just as it prevents every other EU country from doing.

[Herbert Anchovy]

I thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?

EXACTLY! It's not hard to understand is it?

And that I am afraid is where you bought the lie. When/if we leave the EU we dont actually leave one thing. What we actually will do is break 759 international treaties that we have negotiated as an EU member and we will not now be a party to as an non-EU member. Unless and until we re-negotiate them as an individual member. I posted a link on the other thread to a fascinating talk I attended recently about this.

These treaties cover vast swathes of our life on topics such as:
aircraft movement
use of the channel tunnel
movement of radioactive material (x-ray plates and power station fuel)
movement of medicines
movement of animals
access to fishing grounds
landing of fish
recognition of driving licences
access to criminal databases

Leaving the EU without a deal doesn't mean trading on WTO terms, it means normal life will stop.

https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I assume that the U.K. was party to the negotiations on these treaties so why can’t we just ‘ copy and paste’ them as we have done with the trade deal with Japan?

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA.

No it did NOT stop us from conducting trade negotiations with countries outside the EU. What do you think Liam Foz has been jetting off round the world doing for the past 30 months?

What it stopped us from doing was SIGNING trade deals with other countries, whilever we were still members of the SM and CU. Just as it prevents every other EU country from doing.

Billy

You’re wrong

On 27th September the EU Trade Commisioner Cecilia Maelstrom was asked in an interview whether the U.K. were allowed to legally negotiate deals that would be ready to go in 2019. She said

“It is very clear that as long as they are a member they cannot negotiate a trade agreement on their own.”