Brexit negotiations thread

[KevinJH]

Michael Gove made me laugh today. .......What world is he in to deny the obvious?

Any world he likes, as long as he's got his ar$e covered. Odious individual.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Listened very carefully to her 'victory' speech last night and thought the most important passage was the following.

"I will be seeking legal and political assurances that will assuage (this was sub-titled as 'sway' but she did falter at that point) the concerns members of parliament have on that issue."

For me, the word 'legal' is critical. From what I understand, the EU will provide her with all the written assurances she wants but re-opening the withdrawal agreement and amending the backstop legislation is not going to be offered. It is 'legal assurances' she requires in order to get her deal through parliament and that she ain't going to get today, tomorrow or next year.........................is she????

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Listened very carefully to her 'victory' speech last night and thought the most important passage was the following.

"I will be seeking legal and political assurances that will assuage (this was sub-titled as 'sway' but she did falter at that point) the concerns members of parliament have on that issue."

For me, the word 'legal' is critical. From what I understand, the EU will provide her with all the written assurances she wants but re-opening the withdrawal agreement and amending the backstop legislation is not going to be offered. It is 'legal assurances' she requires in order to get her deal through parliament and that she ain't going to get today, tomorrow or next year.........................is she????

She might be able to get some legal note added to the protocol,apparently. Don't expect anything before January though.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

See there won't now be a debate on the meaningful vote next week, which means it has to be held in January.Quelle suprise.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Listened very carefully to her 'victory' speech last night and thought the most important passage was the following.

"I will be seeking legal and political assurances that will assuage (this was sub-titled as 'sway' but she did falter at that point) the concerns members of parliament have on that issue."

For me, the word 'legal' is critical. From what I understand, the EU will provide her with all the written assurances she wants but re-opening the withdrawal agreement and amending the backstop legislation is not going to be offered. It is 'legal assurances' she requires in order to get her deal through parliament and that she ain't going to get today, tomorrow or next year.........................is she????

It will be interesting to see what comes back from these new discussions.

The withdrawal agreement wont be amended at all I dont think, but some form of clarification around the backstop seems to be being discussed.

Procedurally of course you can change legal text through amendments or later documents - indeed the withdrawal agreement is worded to specifically provide for this, by saying in effect that the backstop will endure until it is superceded by alternative arrangements in the form of a trade agreement and/or technological solutions. That does not preclude any other form of superceding legal arrangement.

Contracts, such as procurement frameworks, use this all the time - all you do is specifically 'call out' and replace clauses from the original agreement with alternative text. Laws passed by parliament are constantly amended or added to through statutory instruments or other devices.

So, it is possible to not 'reopen' the withdrawal agreement but append something which clarifies in a legally binding way how/when it would work. That is if the will is there to do that. And that of course does not mean it would be acceptable to the hardliners but we shall see. Clearly the EU must be aware that the DUP can kibosh the whole deal and so getting them on board is the minimum requirement to have a chance to get this through the commons (and there are plenty of hurdles beyond that).

 

[Ricky Otto]

Latest Brexit Odds from skybet:

New Market- HOC 2018 Brexit Vote:-

To Pass 10/1

Not to Pass 1/33

Now I think those sort odds tell us that the PMs deal is very unlikely to go through..

To leave by 29th March:-

No 4/6

Yes 11/10

For the 1st time since the referendum the bookies have this in favour of not leaving by the "cut off date".

Another EU Referendum before 2020:-

No 8/11

Yes 1/1

How yesterdays vote has affected the betting:

HOC 2018 Brexit Vote:-

To Pass 10/1 yesterday 14/1 today

Not to Pass 1/33 yesterday 1/66 today

To leave by 29th March:-

No 4/6 yesterday 1/2 today

Yes 11/10 yesterday 6/4 today

Another EU Referendum before 2020:-

No 8/11 yesterday 4/7 today

Yes 1/1 yesterday 5/4 today

So the money is saying the deal is even less likely to get through the HOC, we are less likely to leave by 29th March but another referendum is less likely. Make of that what you will

 

[Napster]

Clearly the EU must be aware that the DUP can kibosh the whole deal and so getting them on board is the minimum requirement

That's a £1bn well spent then.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

It will be interesting to see what comes back from these new discussions.

The withdrawal agreement wont be amended at all I dont think, but some form of clarification around the backstop seems to be being discussed.

Procedurally of course you can change legal text through amendments or later documents - indeed the withdrawal agreement is worded to specifically provide for this, by saying in effect that the backstop will endure until it is superceded by alternative arrangements in the form of a trade agreement and/or technological solutions. That does not preclude any other form of superceding legal arrangement.

Contracts, such as procurement frameworks, use this all the time - all you do is specifically 'call out' and replace clauses from the original agreement with alternative text. Laws passed by parliament are constantly amended or added to through statutory instruments or other devices.

So, it is possible to not 'reopen' the withdrawal agreement but append something which clarifies in a legally binding way how/when it would work. That is if the will is there to do that. And that of course does not mean it would be acceptable to the hardliners but we shall see. Clearly the EU must be aware that the DUP can kibosh the whole deal and so getting them on board is the minimum requirement to have a chance to get this through the commons (and there are plenty of hurdles beyond that).

Well, that looks as though it went well last night! Behind the polite words there didn't appear much will to change things in any meaningful way. She actually seems to have managed to obtain even less guarantees than were muted beforehand. The Guardian was talking about May angling for a 'joint interpretative guarantee,' which is the kind of thing I imagine you were refering to in your final paragraph above? This, it seems, could have provided a legal guarantee but was not universally accepted as a possibility on the EU side. Back to square one?

 

[mattitouk]

According to the BBC, Britons won't need a visa but will need an "EITAS.

We will need to pay just £6,30 for a 3 year ETIAS to travel as often as you like within the EU (as long as it's not longer than 90 days).

Anyway, Personally £6.30 for 3 years doesn't sound that shabby to me "if" & "when" we do leave.

I presume, it will be the same price for EU nationals travelling to the UK?

Anyway...more on it here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46564884

 

[MK Shrimper]

According to the BBC, Britons won't need a visa but will need an "EITAS.

We will need to pay just £6,30 for a 3 year ETIAS to travel as often as you like within the EU (as long as it's not longer than 90 days).

Anyway, Personally £6.30 for 3 years doesn't sound that shabby to me "if" & "when" we do leave.

I presume, it will be the same price for EU nationals travelling to the UK?

Anyway...more on it here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46564884

Is this on a "deal" rather than no deal?

 

[mattitouk]

Is this on a "deal" rather than no deal?

To be honest, i have no idea.

But i would presume either which way of the outcome. And it won't' come into force until 2021.

According to the article they give special dispensation to 61 countries, including the USA, Japan and Australia, I would presume we will fall under that category also.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

The ETIAS is not just for UK citizens, it is proposed for non-EU citizens travelling to the EU from 2020 or 2021. So it isn’t remotely connected to Brexit apart from in the sense that once we’ve left the EU we will no longer be in the EU (no **** Sherlock).

One other thing that has never been mentioned in the media or parliamentary debate is that the concept of a backstop is a normal and usual device in EU workings. It is regularly used within the Eurozone regarding regulations. So it isn’t that this is a UK punishment beating exercise.

The EU view the withdrawal agreement as simply a tallying-up of any monies due with a political and legal set of how the EU and UK wish to proceed in each of the many areas in which they are currently one jurisdiction but will in future be two. Some things will continue as they were, others will continue in effect but through varied or different means and others will stop. It also articulates how the rights and protections of citizens will be maintained. As such they, quite rightly, don’t see that it needs to be renegotiated. What else could it look like? It is fair and balanced. It isn’t ‘Theresa’s Deal’ it is a fair and managed way to separate one jurisdiction into two.

The real problems here are 1) the hardline uncompromising DUP unionists; 2) the hardline EU-hating and mistrusting Tory (and Labour - Kate Hoey etc) Brexit extremists; and 3) the conniving and manipulative Labour front bench who couldn’t give a toss about the will of the British people or doing what is right and balanced so long as they force an election, no matter what the collateral damage in the process. **** times.

 

[mattitouk]

The ETIAS is not just for UK citizens, it is proposed for non-EU citizens travelling to the EU from 2020 or 2021. So it isn’t remotely connected to Brexit apart from in the sense that once we’ve left the EU we will no longer be in the EU

Didn't I just try to explain this?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Didn't I just try to explain this?

Yeah and I didn’t criticise you did I? Your explanation was fine - I just added an important distinction for the benefit of Zoners on both sides of the debate who see every development as an EU-UK conflict concept when this plainly isn’t.

 

[mattitouk]

Yeah and I didn’t criticise you did I? Your explanation was fine - I just added an important distinction for the benefit of Zoners on both sides of the debate who see every development as an EU-UK conflict concept when this plainly isn’t.

No you did not to be fair.

However, you just sounded a tad hostile at my post. Probably was just me reading it wrong.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

No you did not to be fair.

However, you just sounded a tad hostile at my post. Probably was just me reading it wrong.

No I did not? In what way did I not? You didn’t mention that this applies to all non-EU citizens and I added that! In what way did I not add something? I think you need to chill out and be a bit less sensitive mate.

 

[mattitouk]

No I did not? In what way did I not? You didn’t mention that this applies to all non-EU citizens and I added that! In what way did I not add something? I think you need to chill out and be a bit less sensitive mate.

Did not what?.. I don't understand...please clarify?

Also i believe i did mention it applies to non EU citizens, i mentioned the BBC article about non EU countries such as USA, Japan and Australia not to mention 61 other countries.

Did you read the article?

BTW, Just poured a nice well earned glass of red wine, so couldn't be more chilled out.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

You said ‘no you did not’ @mattitouk, in response to my point that I added something to your post. It wasn’t a criticism of you I just mentioned an additional detail! That detail was that the new policy you rightly highlighted is directed at non-EU nationals - it has no relation to Brexit, despite the shoddy way it is being reported in the UK media.

The rest of the post wasn’t aimed at you - it was for general consumption. Chill out for ****s sake!

Many folks don’t click through links unfortunately, so I’d be cautious about assuming the content of linked articles will be consumed by all readers - it won’t. Hence my clarification.

 

[mattitouk]

Fair enough.. Are we friends again?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Of course!