Brexit negotiations thread

[Tangled up in Blue]

So Skinner defying a 3 line whip is maverick but when Corbyn done it, regularly, then that's principled. That clears that up.

There will be Tory rebels like Ana Soubry when the third and final reading of the bill comes before Parliament.

I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about them then.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

For those who are interested

Dennis Skinner:


Look, nobody should be surprised – I’ve done the same things for over 40 years! I’ve stayed the same for over 40 years. Being against the EU has been in every one of the General Election addresses I’ve sent out to my constituents in Bolsover for the last twelve elections – I’ve been around a long time now and I think I’m the only one who’s voted against everytreaty – Common Market, Maastricht, every single one.
Before the vote on the second reading of the bill I voted for the Labour amendment. If that’d got carried there’d have been no vote on the bill, but when that was defeated what was I supposed to do, run away?
What else could I do? The lobbies belong to everyone, whatever party you’re in – and you vote on principle. I’ve never done any different. I voted for the amendment because I can argue that it respects the will of people. When that was defeated, the only way I could show I respect the will of the people was to support the bill.




What’s worrying a lot of people is the ‘Henry VIII’ aspects of the bill because of the powers it will give the government to bypass democracy. What do you want to tell people about that?


I’m not voting for any power-grab. In the end, after the defeat of the amendment, the bill was the only game in town. People in my constituency had to know that I was keeping my promise to them. If the amendment had carried, me and Ronnie [Campbell, MP for Blyth Valley, who also voted for the bill] would have been exceptionally pleased. But it wasn’t carried – so the people who abstained on that need to answer for their decision.
With all the treaties, Maastricht and the others, I don’t decide who’s in the lobby – some rag tag and bobtail of Tories plus a few unionists.
When it were just me and Denzil Davies [former MP for Llanelli] – do you remember him? – he was an anti-marketeer. I went through the lobby early like I usually do so I don’t have to mix. It was the third reading of one of these treaties, I couldn’t see another MP when I went through, so I checked Hansard [the official parliamentary record] later and sure enough the only other was Denzil but he’d gone through at a different time.
It was the same last night except the other was Ronnie, not Denzil – I couldn’t have told you who others were until later, as we were through in first twenty.


What’s at the heart of your opposition to the EU?


It’s about workers being exploited. All that nonsense Mike Ashley does of dragging people about for a pittance is enabled by the EU.
It’s not about where people come from. I worked with Poles down the pit, Lithuanians too. Displaced people. But they got the same wages as me, – and they were all members of the NUM [National Union of Mineworkers] – and that’s how it should be, not disadvantaging working people by undercutting wages and conditions.
There was no argument at Shirebrook when I started work there at the end of World War II and the ‘displaced persons’ were getting work. Nobody cared tuppence where they came from – nobody went down that pit unless they were members of the union, not until Thatcher.
In fact the son of one of those Lithuanians ended up as presidentof Whitwell NUM. When they were going to close the pit after the 84/85 strike he climbed up the head stock. I climbed up and they thought I was going to talk him down – but I just took him some food. His name was Terry Butkeraitis – he set up Clause IVand used to work on behalf of unions doing political work so they couldn’t be sequestrated.


So, last night’s over and done but the process isn’t finished yet, in the Commons and the Lords – before anything becomes law. I guess it’s a safe bet which way you’ll go if it comes to it?


Voting as I did enabled me, having not been able to see amendment carried, to show I had not reneged on my philosophy, to continue my opposition after 47 years – and I’ve had loads of people thanking me, from Bolsover and elsewhere.
Of course you’re right, it’s still early days – there are many hours of debate still to come and one or two more votes. But you can rest assured that Skinner will vote as I’ve always done – I’ve no intention of doing different. But if we can get good amendments that won’t disrespect the wishes of the people, I’ll be right behind them and it’s up to the abstainers to do the right thing too!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Was mentioned a few days ago that May was to make a speech to the EU and that that may change the structure of the talks. Now being the next round of talks may be delayed until she makes the speech. In the meantime the bill is going through Parliament while the MPs have no idea what she will announce. This doesn't feel much like democracy.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Was mentioned a few days ago that May was to make a speech to the EU and that that may change the structure of the talks. Now being the next round of talks may be delayed until she makes the speech. In the meantime the bill is going through Parliament while the MPs have no idea what she will announce. This doesn't feel much like democracy.

It's all right talks have been postponed "to allow more time for consultation." :winking:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41246573

The Maybot was rightly taking some stick earlier today from Guy Verhofstadt for not having the guts to talk directly to MEP's rather than the conference of presidents.

 

[callan]

Was mentioned a few days ago that May was to make a speech to the EU and that that may change the structure of the talks. Now being the next round of talks may be delayed until she makes the speech. In the meantime the bill is going through Parliament while the MPs have no idea what she will announce. This doesn't feel much like democracy.

Hearing rumours that May will seek to change our relationship with the EEA, probably following the recommendations of Legatum.

This (if true) is possibly a step too far or indeed too early.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Hearing rumours that May will seek to change our relationship with the EEA, probably following the recommendations of Legatum.

This (if true) is possibly a step too far or indeed too early.

Formulating a plan as they go along.
It's been confirmed that the next talks will be delayed by a week. When she makes her announcement we may all stand up and applaud and say 'it turns out you are a master tactician and this whole process now makes complete sense'. But that might not be the reaction. X Factor levels of suspense now, I hope its worth the wait....

 

[MK Shrimper]

How we going on those trade deals? Have we got them all lined up for when the carpet is pulled out from under us?

 

[Lord Football]

How we going on those trade deals? Have we got them all lined up for when the carpet is pulled out from under us?

No.

Legally the UK cannot negotiate bilaterally until we official leave in March 2019 (or whenever).

 

[MK Shrimper]

No.

Legally the UK cannot negotiate bilaterally until we official leave in March 2019 (or whenever).

Oh, so Davis was lying. I see, another one to add to the list.

 

[callan]

No.

Legally the UK cannot negotiate bilaterally until we official leave in March 2019 (or whenever).

Legally we cannot sign a Trade deal until we leave, there is nothing to stop negotiations or intent notices.

Oh, so Davis was lying. I see, another one to add to the list.

If Davis has said that there is Trade dialogue between the UK and other parties that is correct,

By analogy this would be the same as you negotiating a contract with a new employer, whilst under contract to another.

 

[MK Shrimper]

If Davis has said that there is Trade dialogue between the UK and other parties that is correct,

By analogy this would be the same as you negotiating a contract with a new employer, whilst under contract to another.

I can't remember where I saw it now, but Davis was on camera saying thay by September 2017 we'd have all these amazing trade deals lined up, which again, is a lie - as you say, it's illegal.

All I see are companies ready to jump ship to the continent and no trade deals lined up to replace the ones we'll not be a part of come the day of Brexit. Are you not in the slightest bit worried that this is going to be an economic disaster for the UK?

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Junker's speech at the EU (was it in Brussels or Strasburg?) may have given cause to think anew to some anti Brexit posters? widening the monetary union? including more fledgling countries? looser border controls? bigger central budget? unelected President?

 

[callan]

I can't remember where I saw it now, but Davis was on camera saying thay by September 2017 we'd have all these amazing trade deals lined up, which again, is a lie - as you say, it's illegal.

All I see are companies ready to jump ship to the continent and no trade deals lined up to replace the ones we'll not be a part of come the day of Brexit. Are you not in the slightest bit worried that this is going to be an economic disaster for the UK?

You can certainly line trade deals up....having them in force is illegal.

To answer your question about how disastrous Brexit will be, I have always been constant that we need to get to 2030 before making a reasonable analysis regarding its success or failure.

The day of Brexit, (whatever is agreed) there are two things we can be certain of....that the UK will immediately become the EU's biggest customer...and that the UK will continue to sell more outside of the EU (as it presently does) despite the presence of the single market.

Businesses will move in the same way that they have prior to Brexit however with one fundamental difference being that we have uncertainty, caused mainly by political failure both on the part of the EU and equally the UK....which can of of course lead to economic consequences for both parties.

Are there obstacles that need to be over come...absolutely, are we as a country capable of overcoming them?... again the answer would be yes.

 

[Lord Football]

You can certainly line trade deals up....having them in force is illegal.

To answer your question about how disastrous Brexit will be, I have always been constant that we need to get to 2030 before making a reasonable analysis regarding its success or failure.

The day of Brexit, (whatever is agreed) there are two things we can be certain of....that the UK will immediately become the EU's biggest customer...and that the UK will continue to sell more outside of the EU (as it presently does) despite the presence of the single market.

Businesses will move in the same way that they have prior to Brexit however with one fundamental difference being that we have uncertainty, caused mainly by political failure both on the part of the EU and equally the UK....which can of of course lead to economic consequences for both parties.

Are there obstacles that need to be over come...absolutely, are we as a country capable of overcoming them?... again the answer would be yes.

It is clear that the UK cannot, in any circumstance, sign a trade deal ahead of Brexit.

However, there is a legal debate to be had about whether we can negotiate one. I am sure if someone wanted to test it they could, but its pointless. The process would take longer than Brexit itself, would be a massive waste of legal resource and wouldn't change the current situation. HMG's view is that attempting to negotiate a deal this side of Brexit would be illegal, potentially would not be recognised by WTO and would seriously scupper any future with the EU.

So technically it is a moot point.

There is nothing to stop conversations in the margins, but we cannot openly and officially set up negotiations. If we could do, we would have done so - possibly with Australia or New Zealand or even (god forbid) the US.

I know myself and Callan disagree here, but you will not agree a trade deals quickly unless we manage to remain part of existing deals we have with the EU. Technically, that is difficult because there are complex Rules of Origin issues to answer. (maybe that's something for later if we get there). This would need the agreement of the EU and whomever the deal is with.

Official work on a new deal could not commence until Brexit Day 1, and even before you start talking you'd need trade consultation, trade missions, stakeholder engagement, economic assessments.....

 

[callan]

It is clear that the UK cannot, in any circumstance, sign a trade deal ahead of Brexit.

However, there is a legal debate to be had about whether we can negotiate one. I am sure if someone wanted to test it they could, but its pointless. The process would take longer than Brexit itself, would be a massive waste of legal resource and wouldn't change the current situation. HMG's view is that attempting to negotiate a deal this side of Brexit would be illegal, potentially would not be recognised by WTO and would seriously scupper any future with the EU.

So technically it is a moot point.

There is nothing to stop conversations in the margins, but we cannot openly and officially set up negotiations. If we could do, we would have done so - possibly with Australia or New Zealand or even (god forbid) the US.

I know myself and Callan disagree here, but you will not agree a trade deals quickly unless we manage to remain part of existing deals we have with the EU. Technically, that is difficult because there are complex Rules of Origin issues to answer. (maybe that's something for later if we get there). This would need the agreement of the EU and whomever the deal is with.

Official work on a new deal could not commence until Brexit Day 1, and even before you start talking you'd need trade consultation, trade missions, stakeholder engagement, economic assessments.....

I suspect if you cross out the word negotiate...and substitute with the word discuss that would be more accurate...in terms of HMG's official position.

What is clear is that there are 'Trade working groups', who are already meeting with overseas partners.

 

[londonblue]

I suspect if you cross out the word negotiate...and substitute with the word discuss that would be more accurate...in terms of HMG's official position.

What is clear is that there are 'Trade working groups', who are already meeting with overseas partners.

Is there also a practical issue here? Do we (as a country) have the resources to be "discussing" all these trade deals simultaneously, whilst we're simultaneously negotiating with the EU?

 

[callan]

Is there also a practical issue here? Do we (as a country) have the resources to be "discussing" all these trade deals simultaneously, whilst we're simultaneously negotiating with the EU?

Yes ...there certainly could be dependent on how the Trade teams are set up...generally Trade teams are set up on areas of expertise...more often by sector and continent.

Put simply if our teams are trying to be all things to all men then that could have consequences.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Yes ...there certainly could be dependent on how the Trade teams are set up...generally Trade teams are set up on areas of expertise...more often by sector and continent.

Put simply if our teams are trying to be all things to all men then that could have consequences.

its been suggested many times that we have staffing issues when it comes to the current need to negotiate / discuss with the EU and ROW simultaneously.

 

[MK Shrimper]

its been suggested many times that we have staffing issues when it comes to the current need to negotiate / discuss with the EU and ROW simultaneously.

You'd hope these discussions would be fairly cordial and not be arguing over who'd win in a fight of Merkel v Maybot. :unsure:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Junker's speech at the EU (was it in Brussels or Strasburg?) may have given cause to think anew to some anti Brexit posters? widening the monetary union? including more fledgling countries? looser border controls? bigger central budget? unelected President?

Not for those committed to greater integration of the EU by 2025.

Though extending the euro to all 27 EU member states might give Denmark and Sweden food for thought,particulary in light of the recent (narrow) no vote to the Euro in the Swedish referendum.