billythekid
UTC Legend
Compromise on ‘words’, that might let MP’s ‘change their minds’, without anyone actually backing down.
Non - Brexit
- Thread starter afcb.czech
- Start date
Compromise on ‘words’, that might let MP’s ‘change their minds’, without anyone actually backing down.
northstandmark
UTC Legend
It's not Remain, but it's not Brexity enough for Brexiteers. But then the referendum was tight, so it would seem to reflect that fact. It keeps us close to the EU, which simple geography suggests was always likely, without actually being in it and dedicated to ever closer union. It means we have to accept various alignments and regulations, that yes we don't get to help draft, but even on WTO rules we'd still have to do similar. We have to pay our dues which is fair enough really. But it gives everyone some clarity for the coming years, that no major shock will occur to any of trade, legalities and movement. The pound has rallied to a 2 year high overnight at the markets think it might just be workable and would provide stability whilst we continue to exit.
I think it's as good a compromise as we're gonna get. The other compromise route of EEA status is long since off the table because too many Remainers and Brexiteers kiboshed that early on for their own agendas. And if it's a 3 way choice between Remain, 'No deal Leave', or 'This Deal Leave', I would personally urge MPs to go for this deal.
What are the other options? No-Deal? Or Extending A50 to who-knows what end? Election, referendum, perhaps restarting the whole negotiation process again from scratch? Or perhaps throwing our hands up and saying it's all too hard and let's not bother after all? I think I've that's all the other possibilities covered. And it's a gosh no to all of the above from me.
dutchcherry
First Team
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
The unfortunate thing for no deal brexiteers, no matter what they say, is that there was no concensus among the leave campaign that leave meant exiting the single market. Ask Dan Hannan, who is one of the key players on the leave side and was instrumental in bring about and campaigning on the referendum (this is clarified in a book you recommend on here btw).
There is a significant proportion of leave voters that advocated, and still advocate, Norway style EEA membership. Certainly enough to mean that no-deal brexit is a minority opinion.
Compromise is the only viable option.
wallmth
Fans' Favourite
Leaving the single market was written into the governement flyer delivered to every household and on the manifestos of both Con and Lab .
This withdrawal agreement even without the backstop is Brexit in name only .The EU have absolutely no reason to negotiate a fair trade deal with us as long as we’re tied to the EU ,it’s not in they’re interests ,why would they ? We’ll be paying billions to have no say ,for what ,a gigantic trade deficit ..only when we have left will it become in the EU’s interest to negotiate a trade deal.
billythekid
UTC Legend
BBC
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox says that new provisions "reduce the risk" of the UK being "indefinitely and involuntarily" held in the Irish backstop.
But he says "the legal risk remains unchanged", saying the UK would have no legal means of exiting without EU agreement.
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox says that new provisions "reduce the risk" of the UK being "indefinitely and involuntarily" held in the Irish backstop.
But he says "the legal risk remains unchanged", saying the UK would have no legal means of exiting without EU agreement.
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
The government's remain flyer? I don't think using the opposing campaign argument works. You'd be just as well arguing that people voted for an emergency budget.
The general election argument is fair enough - but May would argue this is leaving the single market and it would be for future voters to decide if she's right.
Full text of Cox conclusion, gives a bit more than the BBC one liner..
15. In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the Protocol would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement. This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement.
16. I also advised that in the specific case that situation was due to the EU’s want of good faith and best endeavours, because of the difficulties of proof and the egregious nature of the conduct that would be required to establish a breach by the EU of those obligations, it would be highly unlikely that the United Kingdom could take advantage of the remedies available to it for such a breach under the Withdrawal Agreement.
17. I now consider that the legally binding provisions of the Joint Instrument and the content of the Unilateral Declaration reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained within the Protocol’s provisions at least in so far as that situation had been brought about by the bad faith or want of best endeavours of the EU.
18. It may be thought that if both parties deploy a sincere desire to reach agreement and the necessary diligence, flexibility and goodwill implied by the amplified duties set out in the Joint Instrument, it is highly unlikely that a satisfactory subsequent agreement to replace the Protocol will not be concluded. But as I have previously advised, that is a political judgment, which, given the mutual incentives of the parties and the available options and competing risks, I remain strongly of the view it is right to make.
19. However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.
Make of that what you will.
It all comes down to politics now and who has most to win or lose by supporting or defeating the agreement.
15. In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the Protocol would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement. This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement.
16. I also advised that in the specific case that situation was due to the EU’s want of good faith and best endeavours, because of the difficulties of proof and the egregious nature of the conduct that would be required to establish a breach by the EU of those obligations, it would be highly unlikely that the United Kingdom could take advantage of the remedies available to it for such a breach under the Withdrawal Agreement.
17. I now consider that the legally binding provisions of the Joint Instrument and the content of the Unilateral Declaration reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained within the Protocol’s provisions at least in so far as that situation had been brought about by the bad faith or want of best endeavours of the EU.
18. It may be thought that if both parties deploy a sincere desire to reach agreement and the necessary diligence, flexibility and goodwill implied by the amplified duties set out in the Joint Instrument, it is highly unlikely that a satisfactory subsequent agreement to replace the Protocol will not be concluded. But as I have previously advised, that is a political judgment, which, given the mutual incentives of the parties and the available options and competing risks, I remain strongly of the view it is right to make.
19. However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.
Make of that what you will.
It all comes down to politics now and who has most to win or lose by supporting or defeating the agreement.
northstandmark
UTC Legend
Not sure if that's going to be enough assurance to get the deal over the line in Parliament then, as it's a big swing required from the last vote. Christ knows where we go from there. The vote is tonight isn't it? Just a few hours for MPs to weigh it all up.
wallmth
Fans' Favourite
It was official governement literature not slogans on sides of buses .
RobTrent
UTC Legend
That paragraph is key.
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
It was part of the remain campaign and certainly doesn't add up to mandated brexit policy. There's too many people on both sides trying to define what people voted for after the event. The truth is that there was no concensus on either side and clearly there are plenty on the leave side who didn't advocate leaving the SM.
wallmth
Fans' Favourite
Nothing in that breif that would make hundreds of MP’s change their minds ..if they do it will just prove that this whole thing is once again a complete farce .
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
Admittedly I'm no legal expert but I can't understand why the UK can't just leave negotiations and accuse the EU of acting in bad faith. Surely they've kicked up enough fuss already such that any agreement clearly would require a genuine effort from both parties to reach a future relationship. If this doesn't happen they could presumably walk away.
I think you are right SDD.
IMO (which is worth nothing I admit) the likelihood of the backstop being invoked is minimal, and if it was then it should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate that the EU was not playing ball if they tried to thwart a subsequent deal.
But I don't think it will go through as there are too many over inflated ego's at play.
wallmth
Fans' Favourite
Cmon SDD there was no nuance in that governement flyer . So yes it could be construed as as mandated governement policy considering the same governement were handling the negotiations ...albeit after the prols had voted the wrong way .
Then those people should have voted remain .To leave the EU you have to leave the single market ...Your right that too many people are trying to define what leavers wanted though ..particularly on the remain side they seem to think they really have their finger on the pulse of what leavers we’re voting for
It was the only paragraph you understood .....same as me
