Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there any good reason to think that the UK parliament would accept the WA without the backstop? Something like a resolution?
 
ceptimus said:
ludicrous anti-democratic backstop: that would keep us tied into EU rules and unable to negotiate independent trade deals
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of how you think you are owed special privileges. How these things get handled is a big part of negotiating any trade deal. The EU won’t agree to keeping the tariffs and throwing away the framework any more than anyone else is going to agree to eliminate tariffs without some associated framework for dealing with regulations, third parties etc.


You either need to keep the current framework and tariffs, or negotiate a new framework and associated tariffs. You don’t get to keep the old tariffs and opt out of the entire framework that came with them.


ceptimus said:
for perpetuity, unless and until they decreed otherwise.
Click to expand...

False. Exiting from both the deal on tariffs and the associated trade framework would certainly have been possible. Stupid,like a no-deal Brexit, but possible.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
Is there any good reason to think that the UK parliament would accept the WA without the backstop? Something like a resolution?
Click to expand...

That is the distinct impression given by many in the ERG and DUP - their sole objection was to the backstop. With ERG and DUP support there's a fair chance of it passing.

Whether they'd find a new sole objection if that one were removed is IMO a good question.

All of that is moot because, quite rightly, the EU is concerned that at the end of the transition period the UK would be no closer to being able to say what it (reasonably) wants much less that significant process has been made towards a deal. As a result a no deal (which the backstop is intended to prevent) is still a distinct possibility.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
Is there any good reason to think that the UK parliament would accept the WA without the backstop? Something like a resolution?
Click to expand...

I don’t see any way the EU could accept any deal that doesn’t address the Irish border. The UK shouldn’t be willing to either but the people pushing for Brexit don’t seem smart enough to realize that they are outside the trade and customs agreements they need an enforceable border at which to apply trade rules, immigration rules, tariffs, etc.

All the backstop really says is that there will be a border where EU rules stop and UK rules start. This can be at the actual border or it can be further back into UK territory but only if EU rules continue to apply in the area on their side of where the border is enforced. These are both perfectly reasonable solutions but the UK has rejected both.
 
Lothian said:
So what would be a sensible plan should agreement not be negotiated in time?
Click to expand...
I agree with the government that we should leave on Halloween anyway.

If the EU are very close to agreeing some new leaving deal, which seems unlikely at the moment, then they could offer an emergency transition period of just a few weeks - say until the new year - in which to discuss it. We would still have left on Halloween, but the emergency period would allow a chance to finalize the new deal (or not). During the emergency period we would continue to operate as normal - just as we would have done under Mrs May's deal transition period.

If, as seems more likely right now, there is no prospect of a new deal, then we leave without a deal and can then begin trade negotiations with the EU, if and when the EU are prepared to begin them.

Right now the EU are maintaining that such negotiations couldn't begin, even after a no deal, unless we agree to the backstop - so in that case there would be no negotiations and we'd have to continue to trade on WTO terms - or whatever the EU might decide to offer.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
This is a perfect example of how you think you are owed special privileges.
Click to expand...
Not at all. What sensible country would ever enter into a treaty that allows a separate organization to dictate its trading terms with ALL other countries - and with no exit mechanism unless that separate organization decides to grant it?

You can't imagine any sovereign country being prepared to sign such a treaty. As Boris rightly said, it would turn the UK into a vassal state of the EU.

Far from wanting special privileges, I am quite content to leave with no privileges whatsoever. If the EU want to agree a trade deal then they are welcome to negotiate. Turning down the offer of being dictated to by an outside organization is, by no stretch of the imagination, 'demanding special privileges.'

It's actually the EU that are demanding special privileges - they want the privilege of ruling the UK's trade in perpetuity.
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
I agree with the government that we should leave on Halloween anyway.

If the EU are very close to agreeing some new leaving deal, which seems unlikely at the moment, then they could offer an emergency transition period of just a few weeks - say until the new year - in which to discuss it. We would still have left on Halloween, but the emergency period would allow a chance to finalize the new deal (or not). During the emergency period we would continue to operate as normal - just as we would have done under Mrs May's deal transition period.

If, as seems more likely right now, there is no prospect of a new deal, then we leave without a deal and can then begin trade negotiations with the EU, if and when the EU are prepared to begin them.

Right now the EU are maintaining that such negotiations couldn't begin, even after a no deal, unless we agree to the backstop - so in that case there would be no negotiations and we'd have to continue to trade on WTO terms - or whatever the EU might decide to offer.
Click to expand...
You agree with the Gvt that we should ignore the sensible deal you talked about and leave anyway on Halloween. The non-sensible no deal.

After a no deal the EU will not insist on the backstop. The backstop was designed to keep the NI border open. When we leaveno on deal there will be a border so there is no free trade to preserve. There will no future deal with the EU while Boris insists we will not pay for the services we promised to fund until 2020.

The general consensus is that we will wave tariffs and allow EU traders to send goods to the UK free of charge. Our sales to the EU however will have tariffs applied.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
That is the distinct impression given by many in the ERG and DUP - their sole objection was to the backstop. With ERG and DUP support there's a fair chance of it passing.
Click to expand...

Yep what is the point of leaving if you don't close the irish border?
 
lomiller said:
I don’t see any way the EU could accept any deal that doesn’t address the Irish border. The UK shouldn’t be willing to either but the people pushing for Brexit don’t seem smart enough to realize that they are outside the trade and customs agreements they need an enforceable border at which to apply trade rules, immigration rules, tariffs, etc.

All the backstop really says is that there will be a border where EU rules stop and UK rules start. This can be at the actual border or it can be further back into UK territory but only if EU rules continue to apply in the area on their side of where the border is enforced. These are both perfectly reasonable solutions but the UK has rejected both.
Click to expand...

Well yes the backstop was that if an agreement can't be reached that the border will be between NI and the rest of the UK. To keep the Irish border open at the expense of having a customs border inside the UK. Those objecting to it also seem oddly skeptical that a border is needed at all so it should be pretty easy to avoid it and with there being no land border it would seem easier to institute the border between NI and the rest of the UK than between NI and RoI.

But it isn't like common sense and reason got us into this situation why expect it now?
 
Lothian said:
The general consensus is that we will wave tariffs and allow EU traders to send goods to the UK free of charge. Our sales to the EU however will have tariffs applied.
Click to expand...

Um isn't that against WTO rules? Absent an agreement you have to apply the same tariffs on everyone. Or is this another thing the UK signed up for like the GFA that is getting torn up for brexit?
 
lomiller said:
I don’t see any way the EU could accept any deal that doesn’t address the Irish border. The UK shouldn’t be willing to either but the people pushing for Brexit don’t seem smart enough to realize that they are outside the trade and customs agreements they need an enforceable border at which to apply trade rules, immigration rules, tariffs, etc.

All the backstop really says is that there will be a border where EU rules stop and UK rules start. This can be at the actual border or it can be further back into UK territory but only if EU rules continue to apply in the area on their side of where the border is enforced. These are both perfectly reasonable solutions but the UK has rejected both.
Click to expand...

I'm rather interested in whether the backstop objection is made in good faith. I have serious doubts.
 
ceptimus said:
Not at all. What sensible country would ever enter into a treaty that allows a separate organization to dictate its trading terms with ALL other countries - and with no exit mechanism unless that separate organization decides to grant it?

You can't imagine any sovereign country being prepared to sign such a treaty. As Boris rightly said, it would turn the UK into a vassal state of the EU.

Far from wanting special privileges, I am quite content to leave with no privileges whatsoever. If the EU want to agree a trade deal then they are welcome to negotiate. Turning down the offer of being dictated to by an outside organization is, by no stretch of the imagination, 'demanding special privileges.'

It's actually the EU that are demanding special privileges - they want the privilege of ruling the UK's trade in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
No, the EU did not demand that. The EU only demands that the UK keep the committments it made in the GFA. Nothing more.
 
ceptimus said:
Not at all. What sensible country would ever enter into a treaty that allows a separate organization to dictate its trading terms with ALL other countries - and with no exit mechanism unless that separate organization decides to grant it?

You can't imagine any sovereign country being prepared to sign such a treaty. As Boris rightly said, it would turn the UK into a vassal state of the EU.
Click to expand...
Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement prevents that
Article 132 allows us to extend the transition without entering the back stop.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
No, the EU did not demand that. The EU only demands that the UK keep the committments it made in the GFA. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

And funny how people who are so sure that an invisible customs border can be in place in Ireland don't seem to think one can be between NI and the rest of the UK.
 
If we manage to leave without a deal, you'll see whether anyone builds any border infrastructure at the Northern Ireland-Ireland border. Every party has said they won't, so who do you expect to build it?
 
ceptimus said:
Not at all. What sensible country would ever enter into a treaty that allows a separate organization to dictate its trading terms with ALL other countries - and with no exit mechanism unless that separate organization decides to grant it?
Click to expand...

The US has set high tariff rates on Chinese steel this has driven up costs for US manufacturers who require steel. Do you think the US would sign an agreement that allows the UK to import cheaper steel from China and use that advantage to undercut US made products?

The reason the UK would not be allowed to have separate trade agreements in effect is to prevent back doors into the EU market. It insures that manufacturers in the EU and UK remain on an equal footing and that the UK doesn't use trade deals to create an unfair advantage over assembling the same product elsewhere in the EU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom