Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[UKMikey]

ou have rats, right? Always keep rats not too far away.

Here in the capital, I'm (apparently) never more than 164 feet away from our furry rodent friends.

 

[Tired Tyres]

UK has set itself in the position to have a bilateral negotiation with the EU, which has the confidence of its size and unity. From an EU point of view...
UK doesn't negotiate as a member, but as a past member, hence a non-member (what matters here is when the deal would start running). The objective being that the Brexit end as smooth as possible in the interest of the EU in priority, not the UK (even if that implies that things go well for the UK). There's no room for passions, dealing with diplomatic middle finger is part of the game.


I assume that you misquoted by error since it doesn't means much (so i checked and landed on that from The Guardian: "Michel Barnier has warned that the move led by Labour MP Yvette Cooper to block the prime minister from delivering a no-deal Brexit is doomed to fail unless a majority for an alternative agreement is found.")
Isn't that obvious since hard Brexit is the default outcome from the start?

Never confuse the Labour party with sentient behaviour when it comes to what is good for the country when they can concentrate on constructing impossible ideas so they can blame the Government for what is going to happen even though it is they who are making it happen......

 

[UKMikey]

Never confuse the Labour party with sentient behaviour when it comes to what is good for the country when they can concentrate on constructing impossible ideas so they can blame the Government for what is going to happen even though it is they who are making it happen......

If it was Labour all along who were to blame then should we let the Conservative government off the hook for holding the poll in the first place? Not sure they had the good of the country in mind when calling the referendum. However I don't think the entire party should be held accountable for their leadership's failings on either side. Blaming Labour members is like blaming Remainers for the imminent economic mess we're facing, for not voting "no" hard enough.

 

[adamp93]

You have rats, right? Always keep rats not too far away.

Next time one of our cats brings in a present I'll put it in the freezer.

 

[Milouse]

Next time one of our cats brings in a present I'll put it in the freezer.

Don't forget the stick...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Don't forget the stick...

It must be the nationalistic instinct given to me by my grandparents... but my first thought was "what better nation to offer culinary advice on cat preparation?"

Mind you, by that measure it's horse for tea in our house.

 

[Liquid]

I would like to thank the generous and benevolent Slovak Republic for offering residential asylum to an immigrant fleeing a country of political instability.

Spoiler

It's a right-to-stay residency card, not citizenship or nationality, but it does mean I have my arse covered now in the event of a No Deal.

 

[TenEightyOne]

it does mean I have my arse covered now in the event of a No Deal.

You lucky b.

 

[Liquid]

You lucky b.

It does raise a point in that I don't know if I still have freedom of movement in the EU still if I wanted to move to say, France or Denmark, but it does mean I have the right to reside in Slovakia and cannot be forcibly deported, which had been a genuine concern for me even if it was only a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I think that as long as you have residency granted within a EU country you can go about your business and travel freely within EU "borders". However your residency rights will only apply to the EU country that conceded them to you. In other words, you can move yourself, but you can't move your residency

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that as long as you have residency granted within a EU country you can go about your business and travel freely within EU "borders".

I'm not sure - I thought that applied to EU citizens, not citizens from outside the EU with residency permits therewithin.

 

[Liquid]

I think that as long as you have residency granted within a EU country you can go about your business and travel freely within EU "borders". However your residency rights will only apply to the EU country that conceded them to you. In other words, you can move yourself, but you can't move your residency

I'm not sure - I thought that applied to EU citizens, not citizens from outside the EU with residency permits therewithin.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if this was all sorted before Brexit happens?

 

[DK]

Gammon - not even once.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Gammon - not even once.

Not all EU countries are part of PESCO and, unsurprisingly, Britain never signed up. In reality it's more geared towards cyber protection, the physical "military" activities revolve around training. The advantage is not having to put up with Trump claiming that everybody pays him some kind of "NATO bill"

This kind of fact-checking is probably too nuanced for the current UKIP fans.

 

[Milouse]

I think that as long as you have residency granted within a EU country you can go about your business and travel freely within EU "borders".

In case of a no-deal, I don't think for a second that, for exemple, France would prevent a Britannic to enter his territory nor ask for a visa, no more than a Canadian. What would be the point? You may just need an ordinary passport (or even a simple ID, i don't know if you have that paper mandatory in UK).

Edit: Excerpt from official french gov website:

 

[Touring Mars]

Another day, another set of crucial votes on Brexit...

The votes today are about which amendments the UK Government will make to the Withdrawal Agreement, before the UK Prime Minister returns to Brussels next week in an attempt to secure the EU's approval of the amended Agreement.

In spite of the fact that the EU have categorically (and repeatedly) ruled out re-opening the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations, the hope is that the UK will (after today's votes) be able to return to the EU with a Parliamentary mandate that effectively guarantees to the EU that the UK will accept the deal should the amendments be allowed.

The Government are only supporting one of a number of amendments tabled by various MPs, and that amendment (the 'Brady' amendment) basically says that the Irish backstop is replaced with a legally-binding commitment to using 'alternative arrangements' instead. The UK Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the EU have already agreed to the basic concept of 'alternative arrangements' that will make a hard border in Ireland unnecessary, though it isn't clear exactly what those are. However, the key point is that such alternative arrangements would be created and put in place during the transition period, but rejection of the deal will mean that there is no transition period.

Hard Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg are sounding considerably more in favour of this amendment than has been reported in the last couple of days, and as such it is perhaps quite likely that the Brady amendment is passed, thus giving the UK (for the first time) a workable Commons majority with which to approach the EU and ask for a final concession in order to avoid No Deal. Crucially, it would also put the ball back into the EU's court, and places the onus on them to either accept or reject the 'final' offer from the UK, with a rejection likely to guarantee a No Deal Brexit. As such, the EU will be under extraordinary pressure to allow the amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement to be made.

As for the other amendments that could be voted for, one is particularly important and comes from opposition MP Yvette Cooper - her amendment basically says that should the UK Government fail to agree to accept the Withdrawal Agreement (with or without any other amendments), then the UK will extend Article 50. The Government are vehemently opposed to this, but it is in the balance as to whether it gets accepted or not - I'm not sure what (if any) substantive difference it will make, but the Brady amendment is the one to watch out for this evening from around 7pm.

 

[PzR Slim]

What a shambles yet again our House of Commons is. Been watching the debate and the behaviour from all sides is shameful. The EU must be sat shaking their head in disbelief. We are sat debating the way forward when everything that is being debated the EU have said repeatedly is not open for further negotiation.

 

[Dotini]

What a shambles yet again our House of Commons is. Been watching the debate and the behaviour from all sides is shameful. The EU must be sat shaking their head in disbelief. We are sat debating the way forward when everything that is being debated the EU have said repeatedly is not open for further negotiation.

Solid evidence if not proof you are all dead and awaiting judgement in limbo.

 

[Touring Mars]

What a shambles yet again our House of Commons is. Been watching the debate and the behaviour from all sides is shameful. The EU must be sat shaking their head in disbelief. We are sat debating the way forward when everything that is being debated the EU have said repeatedly is not open for further negotiation.

It must be remembered, however, that the entire process of Brexit has been conducted in a back-to-front manner that was always likely to fail - only now are we starting to see a bit of common sense insomuch as the UK needs some form of legally binding assurance that a trade deal will be concluded within a finite time frame, thus also ensuring that the backstop cannot be permanent.

The fact that negotiations on the Future Relationship (which includes our future trading relationship with the EU and, by extension, also the rest of the world...) cannot even be started until after the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified, has left the UK in a parlous state where it risks being legally bound to EU rules/laws in perpetuity (and breaking up the UK in the process) without a single commitment from the EU of a fair trade deal. IMHO, that is fundamentally unfair and is the biggest reason why the Withdrawal Agreement has been rejected thus far.

Faced with this one-sided, no-win situation, the UK Prime Minister was never going to be able to get the Withdrawal Agreement passed her own government, let alone with the blessing of anyone else.

If the Brady amendment is passed this evening, then, for the first time, the UK Prime Minister will have a new card in her hand, and a very, very strong one - a Parliamentary majority for a deal with the EU. However, the EU have made it abundantly clear that they are not prepared to alter the Withdrawal Agreement, but they too are exasperated with the whole, botched process (for which they are as much to blame as the UK, if not more so). The EU have a dilemma - do they reject what may be the only deal the UK are willing to put Parliament's name to and increase the chances of a disorderly No Deal, or do they suck it up and accept that this might be the only chance they have left of avoiding a No Deal scenario?

A further consideration for the EU must be what message a No Deal would send to populists across Europe. Frankly, the UK and Brexit are actually way down the list of things the EU needs to be worried about right now, and hence a No Deal would be an unmitigated disaster for the EU - not in the same way as it would be for us, but in an entirely different but possibly far more calamatous way. With the bigger picture in mind, I would reckon that the EU should think very long and hard about frustrating Brexit any further than they already have, because (let's face it) we haven't even started the trade deal talks yet and it is very likely that the EU will get a far better outcome for themselves if the UK is legally committed to a close future relationship (on all fronts) via a legally binding withdrawal agreement rather than what will happen if the UK is forced to leave without a deal.

-

edit: Perhaps predictably, the EU have ruled out renegotiating the Withdrawal Agreement under any circumstances.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I wonder what hard brexit would do to the Spanish, Italian and Greek economies? The EU should to be making this easy but they are too afraid of the message that would leave. It may be that hard brexit will do that for them.

 

[Touring Mars]

The Government have won all of the important votes in the House of Commons tonight.

The Brady Amendment (which states that the Withdrawal Agreement will be accepted if the backstop is replaced by alternative arrangements) has passed, and (potentially) paves the way for the UK to leave the EU with a deal.

Two crucial amendments opposed by the Government were defeated. The cross-party Amendment to force Article 50 to be extended and effectively hand the reins of the Brexit process to Parliament.

Parliament did, however, vote in favour of an amendment that states that Parliament is opposed to a No Deal outcome, which, perhaps crucially, has paved the way for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to announce that he is now willing to enter talks with the Prime Minister, which could mean that the UK Government could command a massive majority in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement, albeit without the backstop which the EU have thus far insisted upon.

The future of Brexit now lies entirely in the hands of Brussels.

 

[Hun200kmh]

The future of Brexit now lies entirely in the hands of Brussels.

That's true. It took the UK 22 excrutiating months (of the 24 possible) of erratic behaviour to come up with a position that is backed both by Government and Parliament..

And this means that the EU now can only say "Yes" or "No". If the EU says "Yes, BUT …" there will be no more time for negotiations.

So, the stakes are high and the EU either blinks (to the delight of the Brexiteer UK, that will - I have no doubt - consider the deal a "victory", much to the amusement of the world) or doesn't (which will leave the UK properly stuffed, much more than the deal already leaves them).

These are interesting times. I never imagined I would see the UK - one of Europe's finest powerhouses - opting between economic meltdown (no deal) or rule-taking status (deal, with or without indefinite backstop).

 

[Tired Tyres]

Have they passed an amendment where the tide doesn't come in? That is as realistic as being opposed to a No Deal outcome since that is what will happen if there isn't a deal, which they voted against in the first place therefore they voted for No Deal.....

 

[TenEightyOne]

albeit without the backstop which the EU have thus far insisted upon.

I still don't see how this happens without:

* Breaking the Good Friday agreement
* Creating a hard border which:
- Angers the EU
- Angers Ireland
- Angers Northern Irish Unionists
- Leads to "protective" military deployment once again

The only way to avoid that is a customs union (which is what the backstop is), and that has to effectively be permanent or nominally-indefinite.

 

[Robin]

It didn't take the EU long to reiterate that there will categorically be no more renegotiations on the deal. Parliament have finally come to an agreement and it's a shame Brussels didn't even acknowledge that as some sort of step forward, some actual progress towards achieving an amicable exit.

It's in their hands now, they can either bluff all the way till the last minute then make concessions or just say NO in which case... Bye! because it's seems we can't reason with Tusk & Co anymore.

 

[eran0004]

It didn't take the EU long to reiterate that there will categorically be no more renegotiations on the deal. Parliament have finally come to an agreement and it's a shame Brussels didn't even acknowledge that as some sort of step forward, some actual progress towards achieving an amicable exit.

It's in their hands now, they can either bluff all the way till the last minute then make concessions or just say NO in which case... Bye! because it's seems we can't reason with Tusk & Co anymore.

I don’t know. Seems to me like the parliament just decided that they want to eat the cake and keep it too. Is there any new suggestion about what to actually do with the Irish border?

 

[mustafur]

Considering both sides have said they will not make a Hard border who actually will?

I think Northern Ireland is going to be in the Eurozone no matter what happens.

 

[eran0004]

Considering both sides have said they will not make a Hard border who actually will?

Without having an agreement on how to deal with trade and border crossings they pretty much have to. There’s no point in having an independent trade policy if anyone can just circumvent it by bringing goods into the country through the Irish border.

 

[Touring Mars]

I still don't see how this happens without:

* Breaking the Good Friday agreement
* Creating a hard border which:
- Angers the EU
- Angers Ireland
- Angers Northern Irish Unionists
- Leads to "protective" military deployment once again

The only way to avoid that is a customs union (which is what the backstop is), and that has to effectively be permanent or nominally-indefinite.

A deal that contains a legally binding commitment to avoiding a hard border would respect the Good Friday Agreement... the backstop is the most obvious (and physically most simple) solution, but it is not the only solution. The EU tacitly accept this in the (not legally binding) Political Declaration.

The quandry for the EU is that they appear to be saying that the proposed UK solution - 'alternative arrangements' that will replace the backstop - are not going to happen/unworkable, but that the UK shouldn't worry about the backstop being permanent because they've said in the Political Declaration that they will use 'best endeavours' to implement alternative arrangements. Those two stances are plainly contradictory, and thus it is quite easy to see why the UK/NI distrust the EU when they say that the backstop will not be permanent, as by their own estimation, it will pretty much have to be.

A No Deal Brexit is the most difficult outcome when it comes to the Irish border - but the UK and Ireland already have a written-in-stone bilateral agreement that commits both sides to avoiding a hard border... the EU, however, do not. They can argue all they want about it being 'a UK decision' but the fact remains that it will be the EU's problem in creating a hard border... good luck with that when both countries either side of the border have categorically ruled it out.

IMO, the best possible outcome is that the EU and the UK keep the backstop solution in place, but agree a sunset clause that says that whatever alternative arrangements are in place by say 2024 will take legal precedence over the backstop, and that under all circumstances, Northern Ireland come out of the Customs Unions and Single Market by a specified date. That would likely win a majority in the UK Parliament, and it would save face for the EU. The alternative is that we simply walk away and impose alternative arrangments (however ineffective they would be for the first couple of years) bilaterally with Ireland. The EU would be apopletic but, ultimately, they are powerless unless the UK formally adopts a legally binding Withdrawal Agreement. When all is said and done, the Irish and UK national interests are more important than the sanctity of the EU's Customs Union, and that is the reality on the ground that the EU will soon have to face up to.

 

[mustafur]

Without having an agreement on how to deal with trade and border crossings they pretty much have to. There’s no point in having an independent trade policy if anyone can just circumvent it by bringing goods into the country through the Irish border.

That's the point though, UK will not make the border so the EU will be forced to make it part of the Eurozone and both sides will agree to it, who ever makes it will be the one to claim responsibility for the choas it will create and no one wants that.

Ireland the EU and UK don't want a border so how can it possibly be made.