Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Lord Tyrion]

Then he needs to start acting Statesman like than playing games, it’s ok showboating and claiming this can be moved or that can be done etc, but at what cost and how close to deadlines would he need to do it.

How much money do we waste again on a No Deal Brexit so boris can showboat.

I really do want him to get the best deal he can, but his track record on dates and keeping his word isn’t exactly proof, he’s playing with peoples livelihoods.

Unfortunately it is how the EU work as well. If we were dealing with a country such as Australia or Canada etc then I am quite confident that this would be unnecessary. All deals would go on behind closed doors and we would only hear about it went it gets signed. The EU showboat, posture all of the time. Look at Tusk, Verhofstadt and Junker, how have they been these last two years?

I'm no Boris fan but I understand what he is doing here and I think this set of negotiations should go better as the EU now know we no longer have a lame duck leader. Boris is also not tied to his hardcore leavers so hopefully all will be a bit calmer and smoother.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If I'm reading that right it means that as long as we're negotiating a free trade area and can get it done in a few weeks we can use GATT until the deal is signed off but we will still have left. That would seem to satisfy Boris's claim that we will definitely leave by the end of 2020 but leave a bit of wiggle room to get the deal over the line. If we haven't got the broad outline of an agreement in place by the end of 2020 then the chances of actually getting a deal seem slim so we'd leave with no deal and negotiate from there.

That is my understanding - but note that our plan and schedule is subject to modification or rejection by the WTO Contracting Parties - complete rejection being unlikely with the EU on board (unless the timescales are seen as unrealistic) - but recommendations for modification are quite possible. And my understanding is that we have to implement the recommendations or we cannot implement the agreement we are planning to reach - see Article XXIV Para 7b.

(b) If, after having studied the plan and schedule included in an interim agreement referred to in paragraph 5 in consultation with the parties to that agreement and taking due account of the information made available in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraph (a), the Contracting Parties find that such agreement is not likely to result in the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area within the period contemplated by the parties to the agreement or that such period is not a reasonable one, the Contracting Parties shall make recommendations to the parties to the agreement. The parties shall not maintain or put into force, as the case may be, such agreement if they are not prepared to modify it in accordance with these recommendations.

(My bolded) in other words - we have to do what the contracting parties require of us and the EU. Seems like life living under GATT Article XXIV is not all about UK being in as much control as we might imagine.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

No Deal needs to be kept as an option if we are to get a reasonable deal from the EU. Otherwise what incentive do they have to negotiate? How long would you be prepared for negotiations to go on?2 years? 5 years? 10 years? For every month that they string out the negotiations we are still paying £1 billion (approx) to the EU. Where is their incentive to reach a deal if we say that we will keep negotiating for as long as they like and won't leave without a deal?

We will keep paying some money until 2026 regardless and still keep paying towards Staff Pensions until 2064!
We will stop paying the £39 Mil once we are out.
I’m not suggesting negotiate until forever, but all reports, all negotiations etc from every where in the world has at least taken 2 years plus.
Putting possible unrealistic time frames and then suggesting “oh it doesn’t matter because we can change it” is stupid imo.
How about he gets 31st Jan done, starts the negotiations and gets feedback on timescales, how will it look in Spring if the 31st Dec doesn’t look like happening? New legislation, more billions spent on a No Deal Scenario? These things take time and to put hard and fast deadlines in stone and then excuse them as easily changeable is daft.
What if the EU do the same tactic?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Slight over reaction IMHO and your not taking into account the position of the EU and UK. My best comment would be worry about No Deal if it happens and not before. If no deal happens than we and the EU have loads to worry about, so they will work it out and both will have to give, its just a matter of how much on each side.

If you are dealing with the only supplier on this planet for X, how are you going to get a good deal with them. Do you say 'Charge me us much as you like, tell me all the conditions and I will pay for it', ie. I don't want the best deal. Nope I would not recommend that route

The best deal has lots of elements, not just access, it has conditions, it has products/services, it has how much you are going to pay for access and trade offs etc. So lots of negotiating. A No deal is one stick that can be used to get a better deal.

If you think removing No deal for the table, is a good policy, it would be self destruction. If you believe that then sadly there is nothing anyone on this planet can tell you, that will keep you happy, apart from you better get your wallet out and get paying loads of money to the EU and rolling over to be hammered or maybe you should just stay within the EU, as you would be better off

It may be an over-reaction and like I’ve said I’d be over the moon to be proved wrong.
I can only judge it on what we’ve seen so far and the fact is I’ve personally experienced the pitfalls of a No Deal scenario, as a family we’ve experienced shortages and changes to medical supplies, not good when looking after someone is terminally ill.

A No Deal scenario and the planning that goes in to it, whether it happens or not has real impacts on peoples lives as seen a few months back.

 

[drdel]

Barnier and Brussels have always used the tactic of stonewalling while the UK keeps paying. They were emboldened by the Remain tactics so their stonewalling led them to think Brexit could be stopped. They now need to rethink.

A legally backed end date is sensible - all 'deals' and negotiations need a clear drop dead point. The EU-UK have many things already wrapped/agreed in the WA. The remaining 'trade' deals are already starting from the basis that we already have regulatory alignment and 'free' trade. It is not like 'Canada'' where alignment had to be addressed: if the will is there it can be done.

If a 'deal' is close the PM can easily bring in a Bill and extend; if there's no basis after another 12 months on top of the 3 years of discussions then IMO there is little point in continuing to keep rabbiting.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Which is all well and good and a great idea until we discover that maybe it wasn't. No matter. It's what the people want and why they have elected Johnson and his buddies. Maybe with the Fixed Term stuff binned we'll find him calling election in advance of the economy going down the pan following a no deal exit. But hey - could be years ahead...and we're stuck with the fella.

 

[drdel]

Which is all well and good and a great idea until we discover that maybe it wasn't. No matter. It's what the people want and why they have elected Johnson and his buddies. Maybe with the Fixed Term stuff binned we'll find him calling election in advance of the economy going down the pan following a no deal exit. But hey - could be years ahead...and we're stuck with the fella.

You might want to reflect on the fact that the EU's future economic forecast outlook is pretty dire and well below the growth the UK is achieving. If logic prevails they and the UK will realise that a sensible way forward is good for both.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think this is where our views differ. I see fixing the deadline as a positive, and a way of stopping the games.

He's been in office for less than a week without his hands being tied, and personally, I think he's making all the right noises.

As long as it’s about getting the best deal possible as opposed to the quickest deal possible

And it’s a deal that helps out all nations and one that doesn’t cut of the likes of NI , Scotland etc

Being strong is good - hopefully it doesn’t step over to stubborn. And no one really wants no deal - it’s too daft

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You might want to reflect on the fact that the EU's future economic forecast outlook is pretty dire and well below the growth the UK is achieving. If logic prevails they and the UK will realise that a sensible way forward is good for both.

I'm cool with everything now. It is what it is. But remember - we don't believe economic forecasts...

 

[Dando]

Which is all well and good and a great idea until we discover that maybe it wasn't. No matter. It's what the people want and why they have elected Johnson and his buddies. Maybe with the Fixed Term stuff binned we'll find him calling election in advance of the economy going down the pan following a no deal exit. But hey - could be years ahead...and we're stuck with the fella.[/QUOTE

change the bloody record.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Sorry - it's a Long Player...

 

[SocketRocket]

I'm cool with everything now. It is what it is. But remember - we don't believe economic forecasts...

Feel free to believe what makes you warm and happy, we all have our preferences

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Feel free to believe what makes you warm and happy, we all have our preferences

Indeed - none are mine but it is what we have. Acceptance is a marvellous thing.

 

[Dando]

Sorry - it's a Long Player...

its a boring broken record

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

its a boring broken record

The record isn't broken - it's now simply the wrong record

 

[Foxholer]

Barnier and Brussels have always used the tactic of stonewalling while the UK keeps paying. They were emboldened by the Remain tactics so their stonewalling led them to think Brexit could be stopped. They now need to rethink.

A legally backed end date is sensible - all 'deals' and negotiations need a clear drop dead point. The EU-UK have many things already wrapped/agreed in the WA. The remaining 'trade' deals are already starting from the basis that we already have regulatory alignment and 'free' trade. It is not like 'Canada'' where alignment had to be addressed: if the will is there it can be done.

If a 'deal' is close the PM can easily bring in a Bill and extend; if there's no basis after another 12 months on top of the 3 years of discussions then IMO there is little point in continuing to keep rabbiting.

I'd agree with most of this. But I'd remove any 'trade' deals from any requirement for the Withdrawal (Agreement). These, while in both sides interests to get agreed, are likely to take considerable time and there is nothing in A50 about agreements other than 'withdrawal'.

So these are simply 'new' trade deals that shouldn't affect the actual withdrawal.

Oh and a 'legally backed' end date is just a PR exercise! BoJo has already demonstrated that supposed 'fixed in stone laws' can be overridden!

 

[SocketRocket]

I'd agree with most of this. But I'd remove any 'trade' deals from any requirement for the Withdrawal (Agreement). These, while in both sides interests to get agreed, are likely to take considerable time and there is nothing in A50 about agreements other than 'withdrawal'.

So these are simply 'new' trade deals that shouldn't affect the actual withdrawal.

Oh and a 'legally backed' end date is just a PR exercise! BoJo has already demonstrated that supposed 'fixed in stone laws' can be overridden!

Re: the bit in Bold.
Boris didn't demonstrate that by his own will, he was forced to demonstrate it due to being a minority government and the Remainers in Parliament creating a law to tie his hands. Its not the same now, it's nothing like it.

 

[Foxholer]

Re: the bit in Bold.
Boris didn't demonstrate that by his own will, he was forced to demonstrate it due to being a minority government and the Remainers in Parliament creating a law to tie his hands. Its not the same now, it's nothing like it.

Your Sig applies!

How (or even Why!) he did it is irrelevant; simply the fact that he did it demonstrates the 'PR only' nature such laws will now have!

 

[drdel]

Your Sig applies!

How (or even Why!) he did it is irrelevant; simply the fact that he did it demonstrates the 'PR only' nature such laws will now have!

Are you sure it wasn't more a bit of a litmus test for his own 'new' MPs (Speaker & HoC) to check he could get the new stuff through unhindered in the next 12 months?

 

[IanM]

Whole new game now.... Boris has a majority.