Brexit, aka, the UK Becomes a Clown Car of the Highest Order

Can you find a link to the “unless and until” wording from the UK side? I’ve only ever seen it from the EU. It’s certainly not in p49 of the preliminary agreement.

I trust you that it’s not in the preliminary agreement. So where was such a commitment made, if it was? I cannot find it either.

Charitably, that’s the spirit of the backstop. Uncharitably, he’s making stuff up.

But this just highlights how far apart both sides are on what the point of it is.

From the March partly agreed legal text:

It’s also phrased in functionally identical terms in the December joint report in the surrounding paragraphs:

Was this one of the ‘agreed’ sections?

It’s in the jointly agreed preamble. Or, rather, it’s in the bit ahead of the preamble which explains what has and hasn’t been agreed.

Thanks.

That explains the unless and until wording, thanks.

Well, it’s all kicking off. I’ve no idea what’s going to happen. May might be be able to get her deal through Parliament. She might not. Her Cabinet might back it, or they might not. The EU 27 might agree to it - and they probably will.

SNP, Lib Dems and DUP look unified in opposition.

So it’s going to depend critically on if:

a) she can drag the DUP back on-side.
b) enough Labour rebels vote for the deal to overcome the few Tory rebels who will vote against it.

I see no reason any outcome is forbidden at this stage.

The stupid thing is that at this point, the Brexiteers are right. It’s a terrible deal, especially if like me you have little faith a materially improved trade deal will ever happen without crossing May’s red lines. EEA membership would be far better, even for a Rees Mogg type. But it’s better than a no deal Brexit and I’m far from convinced that a vote against it would result in a better one, unless enough Tory remainers are really willing to bring down the government in a no-confidence vote, which I doubt. Even then, maybe not. All it takes is for one country to veto extending the negotiations.

That said, I’m slightly encouraged after the Commission’s contingency notices yesterday. It looks like they’re willing to take the sting out of the worst aspects of a no deal situation, eg grounding flights, but it’s still going to be brutal for the UK (and Ireland). Especially financial services and anything relying on just-in-time logistics.

That’s going to be the thing MPs are going to wrestle with. Everyone hates this awful deal. The only reason to vote for it is to make sure we don’t crash out in chaos in March. But if people like Grieve are saying:

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1062658242512412672

then that will instill confidence in MPs that they can vote it down without causing absolute disaster in March.

Part of May’s strategy was clearly to try and push that as a real threat, but she couldn’t execute the strategy without upsetting the ERG. So I’ve no idea how many MPs have that concern at the forefront of their mind, but not as many as May would like!

So now we’ve gone from “no deal is better than a bad deal” to “this bad deal is better than no deal”. That’s going to be how this is phrased, and I wonder how many MPs will be willing to stomach that?

Well sure, he’s a remainer, or as close as you can get for a Tory. Of course it’s worse than what we have as a member of the EU. But I don’t see him articulating a plan to actually keep the existing deal. The default is we get no deal.

True. I really have no idea how this vote will go. And it won’t be scheduled for a while.

In this timeline? Gets blown up to pressure the EU to give in.

It’s hard for me to get a clear idea of this deal. My impression was that the 21 month transition period just means business as usual, with the exception of UK representation in governance. The UK stays in the customs union, free movement of goods and people continue, the EU rules continue to apply and the EU courts maintain jurisdiction, etc. But based on what you write here, that can’t be right.

No, that’s right, more or less. The terrible deal is what happens after the end of the transition period (though, to be clear, the transition is worse than the status quo, just not in a way that would materially affect the economy or people’s rights).

Oh, OK. Though it seems possible to me that the transition period lasts, well, forever. Why not? It’s hard to imagine a future UK leadership willing to cut that cord and unleash all the bad consequences, and the EU has very little incentive to force their hand.

Well, for a start, assuming the reporting of the deal is accurate the transition has to be explicitly extended (it’s unclear whether the deal allows for multiple extensions) for one year at relatively short notice. It would be an irresponsible government in the extreme that operated on the basis of indefinite extension, even if it were legally possible. The EU has every incentive once the withdrawal agreement is in place, as the WA is extremely favourable for the EU, removes most of the cliff-edge effects as far as the EU is concerned, and it would allow/force a lot of financial services to be repatriated to the EU27.

That said, indefinite transition extension would, uncertainty aside, be about the best possible Brexit outcome for remainers other than EEA membership.

It seems to me that this will be a textbook example of democratic political failure for decades to come. No rational argument can be made now — now that everyone understands the ramifications of Brexit — for actually endorsing any WA, and any sane government would instead seek to revoke article 50. But the incentives for actual leaders all run the wrong way.

Only in the sense it would be easy to rejoin. I don’t relish the idea of us handing over our ability to influence European decision making, forever.