[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[oathy]

So she's written a letter that's going to be in every single paper tomorrow.
Asking us the public to support her. But not allowing us a vote to see if we agree with her and this "deal".
when you cut all the BS away, Remaining is actually a better option. We keep the rebate and more importantly
have a say on policy issues, Not just sitting in the corner like some Gimp wanting to be ordered around.

David Davis wasted almost 15 months and this deal reeks of a rushed format, that hasn't been thought out properly.
she needs to send this back to us the people either vote for this deal or remain the in the EU.
and stop messing about.

[Teleros]

Asking us the public to support her.

Bwahahahaha...

Remaining is actually a better option. We keep the rebate and more importantly have a say on policy issues

Hell no. The loss of sovereignty and free movement issues are too important.

Not just sitting in the corner like some Gimp wanting to be ordered around.

Not going to happen. International trade only works that way in bad computer games.

David Davis wasted almost 15 months

The negotiations were done almost entirely through Number 10 & the civil service, the DExEU ministers etc have had sod all to do.

either vote for this deal or remain the in the EU.

Even after all this time, you don't understand how Article 50 works, do you? Once invoked, that's it. Two years after invoking it, your country is out, unless there is unanimous agreement amongst the other EU countries to let you stay in longer. So come the end of March 2019, the UK will not be in the EU, period. Undoing this agreement would be illegal under the EU's laws, and were we to re-apply to the EU, we'd lose the rebate and have to adopt the Euro and all that. These negotiations are just to try and establish a framework for the relationship between the EU & UK after we leave in March.

[Pann]

To my mind it's not that so much as the amount of time needed to get a wide-ranging deal done (to say nothing of preparing for it). Per the Telegraph article, the "Norway-style" arrangement would mean customs union membership and free movement of peoples, two of the biggest sticking points for Brexiteers. That means such a deal is also likely to fail, unless Labour prop up May's government (possible, but I'm not sure how likely that is).

At that point what does May do? She wasted a lot of time to get this far, and for her to turn right around and get the EU to agree to a trade agreement that doesn't include a customs union, free movement or any kind of EU jurisdiction over UK matters is... not terribly likely, to put it mildly.

To be honest I didn't read the article as it's behind a paywall but I agree with that there are major sticking points with both the CU and FOM however I am not sure that the Norway model would fail if it followed the so-called Flexit model with a defined time period of when the Norway terms would end and the process of leaving continued. But I think that it is probably too late to implement this.

I think there is a possibility that Labour MPs will end up supporting May's deal just not at the first try but, yeah, I agree that it would be extremely difficult to get anything other minor alterations to May's proposal.

Agreed, but the calculation is going to be "which will get me re-elected, betraying Brexit or WTO terms?" ... I mean sure, Ken Clarke will get re-elected no matter what, because his constituency is as safe as they come, but a lot of other Tories are not in that position. If the WTO option goes badly, they get to pin all the blame on May for her bad negotiations, but at least they personally delivered on Brexit and didn't betray the voters. If the WTO option goes well, they take all the credit for having the confidence in the British people to make a success out of it, then knife May in the back for trying to betray us :P .

I think most voters are thoroughly bored with Brexit and many would be happy for it just to be over one way or another as a result I am not sure if they would be all that bothered if Brexit was betrayed.

I also think that you're underestimating the Corbyn factor, the fact that he and Lab are not massively ahead in the polls, given that the Cons have been in power for nearly a decade and the complete mess they are making of Brexit, suggests that the next election is the Con's to lose rather than Lab's to win. I think for many people it will be a tough choice between letting Corbyn get into No. 10 and Brexit.

I'm amazed she lasted even this long TBH.

No-one wants her job and no-one wants to be left holding the can when Brexit happens.

[dribbles]

Based on current events I can't see any way how no deal could get through Parliament unless it is a result of complete incompetence which let's be honest cannot be ruled out. And I don't think there is an appetite for WTO terms within the Con party as a whole but I agree that the general consensus is that May's deal is a bit crap. I think May is gone after March next year regardless, unless Brexit is complete and utter success with cake, unicorns and £350 million for the NHS... oh and fish... mustn't forget the fish.

I, also, would not rule out the chance of a 2nd referendum but whatever happens is going to wild ride between now and March.

Theresa May went yesterday, or the week or month before that, hard to say the exact day but the version of her in Madame Tussauds is as effective politically as the living version is today. No deal gets through parliament by default unless a deal can be done which does get through. Which it can't in the time left.

Of course there may be a majority in parliament that would support other options than a no deal but all of these rely on the cooperation of the EU.

"Extend Article 50" for another couple of years booms the UK commons majority across the channel at Brussels, why would the EU, why should they? History in the last 2 years of negotiations shows they say no to everything.

That's how no deal gets through parliament.

That's when I crack open the English Cider in celebration of our independence.

[Pann]

Hell no. The loss of sovereignty and free movement issues are too important.

I have to disagree with this. Parliament has always been sovereign throughout our EU membership and we have ways to control free movement but choose not to.

Even after all this time, you don't understand how Article 50 works, do you? Once invoked, that's it. Two years after invoking it, your country is out, unless there is unanimous agreement amongst the other EU countries to let you stay in longer. So come the end of March 2019, the UK will not be in the EU, period. Undoing this agreement would be illegal under the EU's laws, and were we to re-apply to the EU, we'd lose the rebate and have to adopt the Euro and all that. These negotiations are just to try and establish a framework for the relationship between the EU & UK after we leave in March.

I'm not sure if this is the case, some experts say not, others yes. I guess we'll have to wait until the upcoming case in the ECJ is concluded to have a definitive answer.

I also think that if the UK was to request that A50 is rescinded the EU would agree and the resulting PR victory would mean that there was no need to force the UK to go through the new member process (which would not be backed by the UK population).

- - - Updated - - -

Theresa May went yesterday, or the week or month before that, hard to say the exact day but the version of her in Madame Tussauds is as effective politically as the living version is today. No deal gets through parliament by default unless a deal can be done which does get through. Which it can't in the time left.

Of course there may be a majority in parliament that would support other options than a no deal but all of these rely on the cooperation of the EU.

"Extend Article 50" for another couple of years booms the UK commons majority across the channel at Brussels, why would the EU, why should they? History in the last 2 years of negotiations shows they say no to everything.

That's how no deal gets through parliament.

That's when I crack open the English Cider in celebration of our independence.

It's possible that you're right but I wouldn't bet on it.

I had you down as more a pint of Spitfire or Bombardier man.

[Teleros]

To be honest I didn't read the article as it's behind a paywall but I agree with that there are major sticking points with both the CU and FOM however I am not sure that the Norway model would fail if it followed the so-called Flexit model with a defined time period of when the Norway terms would end and the process of leaving continued. But I think that it is probably too late to implement this.

Maybe, yeah.

I think there is a possibility that Labour MPs will end up supporting May's deal just not at the first try but, yeah, I agree that it would be extremely difficult to get anything other minor alterations to May's proposal.

Yeah, Labour is iffy. I think Corbyn's a Brexiteer, but an awful lot of the party (especially New Labour types) are pro-EU too. In general I don't trust them (shocker I know /s :P ), but if they saw a failure to agree to a deal as a chance to get into power? Ah...

suggests that the next election is the Con's to lose rather than Lab's to win

Agreed.

No-one wants her job and no-one wants to be left holding the can when Brexit happens.

Probably - my guess is this is why the Mogg's coup failed. Still, the party conference after the last election and such... it just surprises me BoJo or someone didn't make a move then, when there was more time before the Brexit deadline.

= = =

Parliament has always been sovereign throughout our EU membership

Technically yes, in practice no.

we have ways to control free movement but choose not to.

They'd be much improved outside the EU though. I grant you that a lot of it is unrelated to the EU, but it's one of those cases where every little counts.

I'm not sure if this is the case, some experts say not, others yes. I guess we'll have to wait until the upcoming case in the ECJ is concluded to have a definitive answer.

I also think that if the UK was to request that A50 is rescinded the EU would agree and the resulting PR victory would mean that there was no need to force the UK to go through the new member process (which would not be backed by the UK population).

Here it is, with commentaries:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
Done that bit.

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.
This is what's going on ATM.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Here's the key part. If we have no agreement in place, then barring a unanimous Council agreement to extend things, come the end of March we're out.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Obvious stuff.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Ie we'd have to rejoin as new members.

Wouldn't be the first time the EU would have twisted its own rules into a pretzel to reach its desired outcome, but if they're willing to do that I'm not sure we should be a part of such a group anyway :P . I rather value the rule of law and all that.

[Pann]

Yeah, Labour is iffy. I think Corbyn's a Brexiteer, but an awful lot of the party (especially New Labour types) are pro-EU too. In general I don't trust them (shocker I know /s :P ), but if they saw a failure to agree to a deal as a chance to get into power? Ah...

Agreed.

Probably - my guess is this is why the Mogg's coup failed. Still, the party conference after the last election and such... it just surprises me BoJo or someone didn't make a move then, when there was more time before the Brexit deadline.

I think Mogg and, especially, Johnson are, at least for the time being, spent forces. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a Johnson challenge backed by Mogg once the UK has left.

They'd be much improved outside the EU though. I grant you that a lot of it is unrelated to the EU, but it's one of those cases where every little counts.

How would they be improved outside of the EU? Why did the UK decide not to enforce EU limitations to freedom of movement? Are the reasons behind this decision going to change once we leave? I suggest they will not.

Here it is, with commentaries:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
Done that bit.

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.
This is what's going on ATM.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Here's the key part. If we have no agreement in place, then barring a unanimous Council agreement to extend things, come the end of March we're out.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Obvious stuff.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Ie we'd have to rejoin as new members.

Wouldn't be the first time the EU would have twisted its own rules into a pretzel to reach its desired outcome, but if they're willing to do that I'm not sure we should be a part of such a group anyway :P . I rather value the rule of law and all that.

I'm no legal expert so I cannot offer a definitive answer however what I have been lead to believe is that if the UK was to withdraw its A50 notice prior to the end of the two period then section 3 would not come into force. But as I said I am not an expert and I am happy to corrected.

I think that the rules regarding A50 need to altered if only to offer clarity for everyone involved.


----

I think it is time for me to call it a night. Thanks for the conversation and although I think there are points we're never going to agree on you've certainly given me food for thought. Good night.

[Slant]

Even after all this time, you don't understand how Article 50 works, do you? Once invoked, that's it. Two years after invoking it, your country is out, unless there is unanimous agreement amongst the other EU countries to let you stay in longer. So come the end of March 2019, the UK will not be in the EU, period. Undoing this agreement would be illegal under the EU's laws, and were we to re-apply to the EU, we'd lose the rebate and have to adopt the Euro and all that. These negotiations are just to try and establish a framework for the relationship between the EU & UK after we leave in March.

The EU has signalled the willingness of the member states to unanimously accept a revocation of Art. 50. So yeah.. you absolutely still have the option to stop the madness. You will continue to have this option until the last day.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm no legal expert so I cannot offer a definitive answer however what I have been lead to believe is that if the UK was to withdraw its A50 notice prior to the end of the two period then section 3 would not come into force. But as I said I am not an expert and I am happy to corrected.

I think that the rules regarding A50 need to altered if only to offer clarity for everyone involved.

The question of whether or not the member states would have to agree to a revocation is being deliberated upon by the ECJ as we speak. However, it is rather academic, as the UK would get the approval of the EU member states. I'm fairly certain that aside from a few token gestures to alleviate the cost this has brought onto the EU, the Uk would even get to keep its rebates and we'd return to the old status quo.

I agree that Art. 50 needs fleshing out, but this is what happens when you first use an Article that was written by people that thought they'd never see the day it was invoked. It very much feels like a formality, because it "ought to be regulated somehow" and nobody bothered to actually think it through properly.

[Dhrizzle]

Theresa May went yesterday, or the week or month before that, hard to say the exact day but the version of her in Madame Tussauds is as effective politically as the living version is today. No deal gets through parliament by default unless a deal can be done which does get through. Which it can't in the time left.

Of course there may be a majority in parliament that would support other options than a no deal but all of these rely on the cooperation of the EU.

"Extend Article 50" for another couple of years booms the UK commons majority across the channel at Brussels, why would the EU, why should they? History in the last 2 years of negotiations shows they say no to everything.

That's how no deal gets through parliament.

That's when I crack open the English Cider in celebration of our independence.

More likely the EU will agree to extend the transition period, the UK will keep the costs and benefits of EU membership but not get a say in the EU parliament.

[Kallisto]

I think Mogg and, especially, Johnson are, at least for the time being, spent forces. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a Johnson challenge backed by Mogg once the UK has left.

Would be funny though if it ended up like the Milibands and Jo snuck in and won.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/...564811776?s=20

Mrs May desperation is showing. A
Basically saying get behind deal that no matter if you voted to shoot both feet off (aka leave) or the sensible part of not enforcing self harm on yourself and others (remain). A deal which shoots off one foot with someone pointing a gun at the other.

But Mrs May, how we gonna get behind a deal with no vote?

[Deleted]

Hell no. The loss of sovereignty and free movement issues are too important.

I want you to explain to me what you think sovereignty is, and how the EU infringes upon the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

[Daethz]

Im still amazed the UK hasn't left the EU yet.
Is this a 500 year process?

Leave the EU, ask for military assistance from the united states if the EU trys to screw with them or collapse their economy unpurpose.

[Kiri]

Im still amazed the UK hasn't left the EU yet.
Is this a 500 year process?

Leave the EU, ask for military assistance from the united states if the EU trys to screw with them or collapse their economy unpurpose.

Ohey look, an American barging in knowing next to nothing about the situation or the process and threatening military action against an ally. That's a perfect encapsulation of the current political climate, now isn't it?

[Slant]

The only true complaint to be made is that the UK just doesn't hold power in the EU proportional to it's size. Which is true. It is a legacy of UK non-involvement and of the people electing weak MEPs but it is true that in the truly valuable positions around the Commission, France and Germany are over represented. But this has been a choice of the UK. Your MEPs still have voted in their majority in favour of the vast majority of Parliament decisions.

What? How can Germany and France be overrepresented when each country only gets to nominate one dude for the Commission? And in the Parliament the UK has only one dude less than France.

[Slant]

The issue is the bureaucracy surrounding the Commission Slant. That's where the power is. in the Civil Service.

Huh, and here I was thinking the power was in the votes cast by the members instead of the paper pushers around them. And the input from the member states themselves. You need to be careful with those allegations, they are what caused Brexit to be so easy in the UK. While you can say civil servants are the true power and run any country, and it might even be technically true, they are on the receiving end of orders and instructions. They don't make policy, they just implement it. So I would disagree with your assessment.

[zealo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46334649

The UK’s withdrawal agreement from the European Union has been approved by EU leaders, its chief official Donald Tusk has announced.

The 27 leaders gave it their backing after less than an hour's discussion in Brussels.

Mr Tusk signalled on Saturday that the deal would be approved after Spain withdrew last-minute concerns over Gibraltar.

This deal will likely be a major challenge for May to push through Parliament still, but the EU has approved it on their end.

[Teleros]

The EU has signalled the willingness of the member states to unanimously accept a revocation of Art. 50. So yeah.. you absolutely still have the option to stop the madness.

Like I said, sounds like a case of twisting what's written into a pretzel.

I want you to explain to me what you think sovereignty is, and how the EU infringes upon the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Can the UK negotiate its own trade agreements? No. Can the UK institute the death penalty? No. Etc etc etc.

[Santti]

Can the UK institute the death penalty? No. Etc etc etc.

Well that's a weird thing to point out. You want to institute the death penalty?

[Teleros]

Well that's a weird thing to point out. You want to institute the death penalty?

Whether I personally want to or not is besides the point. If the British government wanted to, it could not do so as an EU member state.

[Vankrys]

She is the worst PM in living memory and speaks for no one save herself, as the EU will see in a couple of weeks time.

Then why the hell did you put her in charge. Why didn't you put in charge a true brexiter at heart like Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson? oh that's right, they quit as soon as shit got real. Someone has to step up and take care of the mess.

In the olden days she would have be confined to the tower by now. Giving away Gibraltar, giving away N. Ireland, who next Wales, Scotland, Essex?

What older days are you talking about? Medieval times?

But she does make an excellent time wasting negotiator, with no authority, from a no deal brexiteers pov.

Tick tock.

Tick tock indeed. In Europe too, we can't wait for this mess to be over.