Brexit (Old)

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

A 'no deal' would not bring the chaos that some predict, but the Withdrawal Agreement is designed to smooth the way.

it would what about medicines security planes ect we leave every treaty OB as says in article 50 and we be only country in world with zero trade deals too and there no withdrawal agreement at all with a no deal Brexit OB

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

A 'no deal' would not bring the chaos that some predict, but the Withdrawal Agreement is designed to smooth the way.

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/no-d...-consequences/

A “no deal” Brexit does what it says on the tin. It means the UK and the EU would be unable to reach a withdrawal agreement.

If no agreement can be made, it means there would be no 21-month transition period, which Theresa May is currently proposing. If that was the case, consumers, businesses and public bodies would have to respond immediately to changes as result of leaving the EU.

No deal - no Withdrawal Agreement.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/no-d...-consequences/ No deal - no Withdrawal Agreement.

of course the "deal" is the Withdrawal Agreement.

Even if the was a deal Any future trade relationship would need to be negotiated and there's far from any guarantee that we would get anything like we want and any trade deal would need the full agreement of the 27, so things like access to UK waters and other interests the EU27 may have would simply be bargained away. Not forgetting if after two years we haven't got a solution to N.I. (not that it needs one) the backstop comes into force meaning we can't actually leave the customs union unless the EU agree to it.

It's a shitstorm.

I'd be quite happy to "Crash Out" go over the "cliff edge" or use your own preferred hyperbole.

Leave on WTO and negotiate from o/s the EU. Only then can we negotiate on equal terms.

[jfman]

It doesn’t matter what flawed and unquantifiable metrics people justify “no deal” as a good idea. The Parliamentary arithmetic won’t allow it when push comes to shove, and we have now all accepted Parliament can defy the “so called” will of the people if it wishes to. It’s all now about the PR.

If it was as straightforward as “no deal=Brexit” people wouldn’t be using terminology like chaos, or shitstorm. Nor would there be panic among JRM and the ERG. It’d be crystal clear.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

. . and we have now all accepted Parliament can defy the “so called” will of the people if it wishes to.

not all of us, no

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

It doesn’t matter what flawed and unquantifiable metrics people justify “no deal” as a good idea. The Parliamentary arithmetic won’t allow it when push comes to shove, and we have now all accepted Parliament can defy the “so called” will of the people if it wishes to. It’s all now about the PR.

If it was as straightforward as “no deal=Brexit” people wouldn’t be using terminology like chaos, or shitstorm. Nor would there be panic among JRM and the ERG. It’d be crystal clear.

I don't think anybody is suggesting "no deal" is a good idea. It's just with "no deal", a satisfactory deal can still be done. But with the proposed deal we could be stuck with it for eternity.

The PM says the advice is confidential, but some MPs think ministers do not want to admit it says the UK could be indefinitely tied to EU customs rules.
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox will make a statement about it later.

The Attorney General's position paper says that once triggered, the backstop will continue to apply "unless and until its provisions are superseded by a subsequent agreement between the UK and the EU".

And the EU could continue to be awkward about that, as they already have been up until now.

[djfunkdup]

Originally Posted by Dave42

it would what about medicines security planes ect we leave every treaty OB as says in article 50 and we be only country in world with zero trade deals too and there no withdrawal agreement at all with a no deal Brexit OB

You honestly honestly need to calm down man ...

[jonbxx]

Looking at the furore this agreement has caused, it does seem that a lot of people have forgotten that the deal on the table is an interim agreement until a full trade agreement can be reached.

Here's a nice summary from some trade experts on the current status and what might happen next and what needs to happen next - https://uktradeforum.net/2018/11/30/...l-with-the-eu/

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Looking at the furore this agreement has caused, it does seem that a lot of people have forgotten that the deal on the table is an interim agreement until a full trade agreement can be reached. [SEPH]: Er - see Macron for bullying details as to the difficulties we'll have reaching a trade deal with 27 countries of which France is but the first.

Here's a nice summary from some trade experts on the current status and what might happen next and what needs to happen next - https://uktradeforum.net/2018/11/30/...l-with-the-eu/ [SEPH]: Not a 'nice summary' at all because it completely downplays the likelihood or even the possibility of being trapped in the CU at the EU's whim.

[jfman]

Curious language by the Attorney General, the backstop is “intended to be temporary“, which is to say it doesn’t have that definate legal status. Or else he would specify the timescale or mechanism by which it will end.

Tick tock for May’s plan.

---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

I’m still unsure how a French starting point of negotiations (fishing rights) is “bullying” if we want tariff free access to the largest trading bloc in the world. What if Trump wanted rights to drill for shale gas in the UK or it’s overseas territories to go to US companies? Would that be “bullying”?

“Great” Britain better get used to being bullied I feel giving up anything in trade negotiations is suddenly a red line. The rest of the world is likely to be anticipating our distressed negotiating position as we get desperate for any kind of agreement with anyone.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Looking at the furore this agreement has caused, it does seem that a lot of people have forgotten that the deal on the table is an interim agreement until a full trade agreement can be reached.

Here's a nice summary from some trade experts on the current status and what might happen next and what needs to happen next - https://uktradeforum.net/2018/11/30/...l-with-the-eu/

The UK would be "indefinitely committed" to EU customs rules if Brexit trade talks broke down, the chief law officer has said.

"Indefinitely" is a lot longer than "Interim". It is solely the EU that decides how long is "interim". At the very least they would hold it over us until they get everything they want, which with either May or Corbyn would be easy for the EU.

Insisting he would answer questions 'candidly', Mr Cox said the Britain was 'indefinitely committed' to the backstop if it ever came into force - but said that was a political not a legal question.
Short of agreeing a full UK-EU trade deal, the only way to break the Irish backstop is to convince a tribunal there is 'clear evidence' that the EU is deliberately avoiding finalising a trade agreement.

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Curious language by the Attorney General, the backstop is “intended to be temporary“, which is to say it doesn’t have that definate legal status. Or else he would specify the timescale or mechanism by which it will end.

Tick tock for May’s plan.

---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

I’m still unsure how a French starting point of negotiations (fishing rights) is “bullying” if we want tariff free access to the largest trading bloc in the world. What if Trump wanted rights to drill for shale gas in the UK or it’s overseas territories to go to US companies? Would that be “bullying”?

“Great” Britain better get used to being bullied I feel giving up anything in trade negotiations is suddenly a red line. The rest of the world is likely to be anticipating our distressed negotiating position as we get desperate for any kind of agreement with anyone.

Nothing wrong with allowing other countries access to our waters, but it must be under OUR FULL control. No need for it to be part of any agreement, although a minimum EU quota doesn't seem unreasonable.



We don't have a big enough UK fishing fleet to take up any slack from not allowing other countries access. Overnight there would be a shortage of available fish.

[jfman]

Well any agreement is “our full control”; it’s either worth the value attributed or it isn’t. Same as any financial transaction really.

If I want to sell my house for half a million quid and I can’t find a buyer, I can hardly describe the folk offering me 450k bullies for not giving me what I want.

[Hom3r]

I'm getting sick to death by the idiots calling for Brexit to be abandonded.

Mark my words if it happens with in 10 years kiss Sterling goodbye and say hello to the Monopoly currency called the Euro.

I for on will NEVER have any coins or notes in my pocket of that currency. The excption being any work competions that I enter and get a winning pay out. This will be paid ASAP in to my account.

I'll also start a campaign to add to every election a box to tick to get another vote should I not get my way, as we all know parties do what they say they will do.

[jfman]

Physical money is dying off anyway, I wouldn’t concern myself too much over what it looks like.

There’s no commitment for us to join the Euro at present and no mechanism for the EU to make us join if we remained. It’s just scaremongering.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Well any agreement is “our full control”; it’s either worth the value attributed or it isn’t. Same as any financial transaction really.

If I want to sell my house for half a million quid and I can’t find a buyer, I can hardly describe the folk offering me 450k bullies for not giving me what I want.

The "interim" agreement goes on constantly about having to obey EU rules. I should imagine France wants UK waters to be remain part of the Common Fisheries Policy, where of course we would continue to have no say. If it was anything else there would be no reason for the French to be so antagonistic about it.