Brexit Thread III - How to instantly polarise your country without even trying

[Kyriakos]

As far as I understand it, the agreement only covers that there will be a backstop, i.e., the exit agreement will have legal text that spells out a default option in absence of an agreement between the UK an the EU on how to handle the Irish border. However, the agreement does not cover what exactly that text will be. So, in case a miracle occurs and someone thinks of the magic solution that meets the apparently contradictory demands of the UK government, it could be inserted into the final text and replace the one that was proposed by the EU (if it is satisfactory to he EU as well). The way this is going, that miracle isn't going to happen, the final agreement will be close to the EU proposal and the current deferral is just another one of those that puts the UK into a worse position than it already is.

This is shaping up to be a very bad deal for the UK. It is going to give the EU almost everything it wants for a 21-month transition period. Once it is signed, the UK will still be under time pressure to negotiate deals for the future relationship, but the EU lost most of its pressure to sign a deal and can easily threaten to walk away from anything the UK proposes. The problem is that no matter how bad the deal, the UK will have to sign it or face walking off the cliff. A matter made worse by that the longer they keep stalling waiting for - what exactly? - the less time they have to prepare for that walk.

Article 50 was designed to place the leaving country in a bad position, but the incompetence and indecisiveness of the UK government has dug them into a much deeper hole.

Never underestimate Boris; he'll "much rather tell you the price for a glass of champagne"

 

[dutchfire]

A matter made worse by that the longer they keep stalling waiting for - what exactly? - the less time they have to prepare for that walk.

Joris Luijendijk:
https://twitter.com/JORISLUIJENDIJK/status/975779102501359616

Today's transitional agreement is a major victory for hard Brexiteers since it carries the Brexit process beyond the date of no return, ie 29 March 2019. So Brits will discover how hard their hard Brexit is only after it has become irreversible.

 

[GinandTonic]

Well good luck getting parliament to sign off a hard brexit.

Or any specific deal really.

 

[Arakhor]

It is difficult to see how Parliament will have much of a say on anything once Brexit date has passed, even if the Prime Minister suddenly grows a spine and actually allows them to do their jobs in a timely manner.

 

[ori]

curiously it appears Gibraltar was left out in the cold with them having their exit from the common market without the transition period unless the UK and Spain agree on a solution.

 

[really]

There is nothing unsurprising in that.
The UK is either incompetent or doesn't care and who within the rest of the EU would be advocating for Gibraltar on the other side?

Northern Ireland is a focus because it is a priority for a remaining member and because the EU itself was engaged in the peace process and wants to protect it.

I doubt Spain would care if Gibraltar was locked out of the single market and let wither.

Edit: And it wouldn't just be a matter for the UK and Spain. Any Gibraltar involvement in the single market would have to be agreed by the rest of the members and I wouldn't rate it's chances very highly.

 

[ori]

What I was referencing was this:

But while the text explicitly states that Gibraltar is included in the scope of the agreement, it also includes a footnote – marked with an asterisk, not a number – referring to the veto granted by the EU to Spain on the issue of Gibraltar.

In practice it means that while any immediate flare-up over Gibraltar has been defused at a critical point in the wider Brexit negotiations, the underlying issue of the Spanish veto remains unresolved.

Clause 24 of the EU’s negotiating guidelines states that any transition agreement or future trade relationship between the UK and the EU can only be extended to Gibraltar after bilateral agreement between the UK and Spain.

So the Spanish veto was once again reiterated and since nothing points towards a UK/Spain agreement on the status of Gibraltar it is atleast not unliquely that Gibraltar will exit prior to the UK proper which would probably cause quite a bit of problems for that territory. Of course its of minor concern for everyone not involved with Gibraltar or Spain, but still.

 

[really]

Gotcha.
The only point to note above that is that the EU didn't give Spain a veto - Spain and any other country that might have been interested had a veto.
Spain just got it written down as part of the process.

 

[ori]

Actually not quite as per Article 50 the exit agreement requires a qualified majority, not an unanimous agreement so absent the explicit promise of a veto spain did not and does not have one (and of course could conceivably be ignored on that front though I doubt that the politics of that would favour such a result) - this along with the Irish position was explicitly added to the negotiation conditions in order to get an unanimous agreement on the negotiation strategy though.

 

[really]

I will have to remind myself - Does the transition agreement require unanimity?

 

[ori]

anything that is arguably part of the Article 50 agreement (which is supposed to both cover the exit and the post-exit relationship) is subject to a qualified majority. If there is not Article 50 agreement that reverts to usualy EU rules, i.e. "pure" trade agreements are qualified majority, anything touching the sovereign member rights becomes a unanimous decision.

 

[innonimatu]

As really points out it will be quite hard to police the NI border.

I would not get a job working in UK customs on a hard border with the Eire.

I don't understand why no one says the obvious: the NI border with Ireland is an irish (as in Republic of) problem. The UK has no need and no desire to enforce that border, and neither the EU not Ireland can force it to do so. The EU can't even make Ireland enforce their side of the border because the irish too are not interested in that. It's a lot of posturing to avoid admitting to the fact that it will become a semi-official smuggler's area.

My guess is that the end game for this particular portion of the contention is that the border will remain as is, even if formally it is declared a "hard" border.

So the Spanish veto was once again reiterated and since nothing points towards a UK/Spain agreement on the status of Gibraltar it is atleast not unliquely that Gibraltar will exit prior to the UK proper which would probably cause quite a bit of problems for that territory. Of course its of minor concern for everyone not involved with Gibraltar or Spain, but still.

Gibraltar's entire raison d'être is not being part of Spain and not having to obey spanish laws. The government of the UK risks nothing in leaving it out of the deal: the locals will have to take whatever is offered, because the alternative is to join Spain and just become a regular spanish province. If they want to live that way they can emigrate.
They will take the option of remaining the odd territory out doing legally stuff that is forbidden elsewhere, even if they must deal with higher barriers to do so.

Neither of these two issues is really important to the government of the UK. It will give way on both in exchange for others.

 

[Arakhor]

Even if the "hard border whilst secretly having no border" option was the "obvious" option, the UK is between a rock and a hard place, especially given that the Tories are relying heavily on the DUP right now. Besides which, presiding over a smuggling area will be political poison - no one wants to get involved in that, especially not Mr & Mrs Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells, who can't even bear the idea that Calais exists, let alone the idea just about anyone can waltz into Northern Ireland seemingly unopposed.

 

[FriendlyFire]

anything that is arguably part of the Article 50 agreement (which is supposed to both cover the exit and the post-exit relationship) is subject to a qualified majority. If there is not Article 50 agreement that reverts to usualy EU rules, i.e. "pure" trade agreements are qualified majority, anything touching the sovereign member rights becomes a unanimous decision.

Didnt certain EU countries threaten to VETO the new Brexit deal over certain trade items ?
I think it was Poland over the mass deportation of its Plumbers (Kuwa), Spain over Gilberta (Gib Clay)

Then what happens to all the EU citizens in the UK and all UK retirees in the EU ? I suppose the status qou will likely apply until something is sorted out. Else it would be chaos

 

[ori]

There is no veto over the final deal as per Article 50(2):

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

That said: the EU is concerned with a unified position during negotiations and there obviously everyone can threaten to leave that position - also member states of course retain their unrelated vetos and even threatening that may be sufficient reason to get their way.

As for EU nationals in the UK and vice versa. Apparently the only thing now agreed on is that those arriving in the UK during the transition period will be treated the same as those arriving prior to Brexit. The EU position still being that those should be allowed permanent residency and work permits.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Its was Veto not over UK leaving, it was Vetoing any new trade deals with the UK
I think Veto power was for any new members and all major EU decisions, I think the EU- Canadian Free Trade was help up by Netherlands wanting its specialist agriculture protected and threatening to veto it

EU states set to veto any Brexit deal threatening free movement
Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic ready to protect rights of citizens to live and work in the UK

In a stark reminder of the challenge Britain faces at the negotiating table, Robert Fico said Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia – known as the Visegrad, or V4, group – would not hesitate to block any future trade accord that threatened the key EU principle of free movement of workers.

“Unless we feel a guarantee that these people [living and working in Britain] are equal, we will veto any agreement between the EU and Britain,” Fico told Reuters. “I think Britain knows this is an issue for us where there’s no room for compromise.”

 

[ori]

The Article 50 treaty though can cover the trade relations - also pure trade treaties are not subject to a veto anyways anymore. So that description atleast is incorrect. Now if Article 50 negotiations fail to yield an agreement then things revert to normal rules and any non-pure trade agreement would be subject to vetos (and the UK wants a non-pure treaty as it wants financial services included). On the other hand strong opposition even by a few countries may be politically untennable regardless of official veto power.

 

[tjs282]

I don't understand why no one says the obvious: the NI border with Ireland is an irish (as in Republic of) problem. The UK has no need and no desire to enforce that border, and neither the EU not Ireland can force it to do so

It's only an 'Irish problem' with respect to goods going from the NI (UK) to Eire (EU). For goods -- and people -- coming from Eire (EU) into NI (UK) it absolutely is a 'British problem'. I mean, given that one of the primary Brexiteer arguments for Leave-ing was that doing so would allow Britain to control its borders and regulate immigration (which was already quite possible to do prior to the Brexit-Referendum, but Theresa May as Home Sec was apparently unwilling/incapable of doing it), how can a soft EU-UK (Northern Irish) border not be a 'British problem'? something something ... take back control ... something something

 

[really]

I don't understand why no one says the obvious: the NI border with Ireland is an irish (as in Republic of) problem. The UK has no need and no desire to enforce that border, and neither the EU not Ireland can force it to do so. The EU can't even make Ireland enforce their side of the border because the irish too are not interested in that. It's a lot of posturing to avoid admitting to the fact that it will become a semi-official smuggler's area.

My guess is that the end game for this particular portion of the contention is that the border will remain as is, even if formally it is declared a "hard" border.

The UK fought a thirty year long civil war in Northern Ireland which came to a negotiated peace with (now suspended) power sharing.

The EU was as far as I remember an observer in the Northern Ireland peace process and wants to maintain that peace. (Possibly represented by M. Barnier?)

Any solution which involves turning a blind eye on either side of the border is a fudge and should not be acceptable for either side

Both the UK and the EU have to enforce a customs border as leaving an open unenforced border without a negotiated solution would leave the respective blocks open to litigation from those who don't have the same benefits.

Ireland wants a negotiated solution to avoid creating as you said a smugglers paradise - and when you talk about smugglers along the border it means the IRA taking their cut.
We equally don't particularly want to be eating chlorinated chicken or whatever comes from post Brexit Britain.
The border region is also generally the poorest part of this country. We don't want to put the economic development backwards.

Politically a lot of effort has gone into normalizing life along the border - fudging that would be to throw that all away.

Practically: who do you feel has put more thought into the implications for peace on this island? Westminster or Brussels?

 

[Oerdin]

If this is the case, then...
...I think maybe it rather should have been called the 'backdoor' option... because it's difficult to imagine how NI will then be prevented from becoming a UK <—> EU conduit for smuggling... well, anything...

To be fair, if there is free trade then that problem goes away.