SIGN UP

The Brexit "deal" A Synopsis;

Avatar Image
Khandro | 14:40 Wed 21st Nov 2018 | News
41 Answers
In case you, like Jeremy Corbym haven't managed to read the whole 600 pages, here's a run down, courtesy of Steerpike of the Spectator;
The top 40 horrors:
1.From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
2.May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
3.The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
4.The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
5.The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
6.Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
7.“UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
8.The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
9.Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
10.The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
11.Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
12.The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
13.The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was,

Answers

1 to 20 of 41rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unbelievable!
love 10 and 11! PMSL 11. so we cannpt prosecute an EU employee ever! PMSL
Question Author
There's another 27, but AB can't handle more text in one tranche it seems, I could post more though.
I can't give a link because I think it is only for subscribers.

14.The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
15.The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 8)
16.The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
17.All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
18.Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
19.The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
20.Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
21.Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
22.The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)
23.The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)
24.The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
25.The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals
this is like the treaty of Versailles, ie more or less guaranteed WWII! I notice none of the VB are refuting it. How can we possibly agree to this?
This must be bang on Khandro, no sign of the VB trying to refute any of your points.
Who are 'the VB' Tora?
Question Author
to complete the horror story;
26.We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
27.The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
28.The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
29.Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
30.The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
31.Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
32.The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
33.The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
34.The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
35.The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
36.And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
37.The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
38.The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
39.The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
40.And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)
can someone please reassure me that this is a joke? Surely no one would sign up for this? Might as well stay in.
Not sure I'm willing to go through Khandro's post point-by-point, but I did glance over the deal myself and was less than impressed myself. I've said so earlier. It's a poor deal, but I strongly suspect that -- in the time available, and from the position we started -- there wasn't much better we could get. The difference is how to respond to that.
Jim, //in the time available, and from the position we started -- there wasn't much better we could get. //

Yes ... there was. We could have simply written our letter of resignation, fulfilled our obligations .... and left.
Jeeeeez. How to capitulate in one easy session.
Tear it up,chuck in Junker's face and say byeeeee
Bloomberg is pro-business, pro-Europe and anti-Brexit but this is the second demolition of May's deal that it's published (by Clive Crook)-

Serious negotiations on the U.K.’s longer-term economic relationship with Europe haven’t actually started. Despite its inordinate length, the draft agreement is almost exclusively concerned with the terms of Britain’s departure: what it owes, what arrangements will apply during a 21-month transition period before Brexit comes into effect, the rights of EU citizens living in Britain and vice versa, and what steps will be taken during the transition and beyond to ensure that no hard border will be needed between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. A short section will be appended on the shape of the future economic partnership, but unlike the rest of the deal this will be non-binding and amount to little more than a statement of intent.

The so-called backstop arrangement for Northern Ireland has played a pivotal role throughout. One of Britain’s biggest mistakes from the beginning — that’s a high bar, heaven knows — was to let this issue assume such importance. By its nature, the backstop had to extend beyond the transition and connect the exit terms to the yet-to-be-determined future relationship. But the question was, how far would it shape and constrain that eventual outcome?

The new feature is that the backstop not only envisages an arrangement much to the U.K.’s disadvantage, but also in effect commits the U.K. to endure it indefinitely, until the EU decides otherwise.

In this new text, there’s no time limit on the backstop, and no exit clause. The terms are that, unless the EU says different, Britain would remain in a relationship that suits the EU pretty well — as part of a stripped-down customs union (preventing the U.K. from cutting its own trade deals), bound by various “level playing-field” restrictions (making it impossible for Britain to make its own policy on an array of economic questions), with a border of sorts between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K., and subject to rulings of the European Court of Justice across an expansive range of issues. Britain would be a disenfranchised EU rule-taker, with no voice on policy, and no option to quit.

Once Britain has acceded to this, what reason is there for the EU to agree to any other kind of deal? Why look for other solutions to the Northern Ireland issue — for instance, to a comprehensive free-trade agreement plus technological solutions to keep the border open? Europe will be empowered to prolong any such discussion indefinitely, and will probably choose to do just that. Why agree to a long-term trade partnership more to Britain’s liking and less to Europe’s, once Britain has allowed itself to be chained to this in perpetuity?

At this stage of the negotiations, both sides should have merely declared that they would avoid the reimposition of a hard border on the island of Ireland, and leave it at that. How tough a problem the border question proves to be is uncertain until the terms of the long-term relationship are clear. There was no reason to suspect the U.K. of resiling from that commitment, because its interest in avoiding a hard border and any inflaming of sectarian anger in the North is greater than Ireland’s and vastly greater than the EU’s. If it was necessary to say more than that, the backstop needed a time limit and/or an exit clause, and it needed to be equally objectionable to both sides as a permanent dispensation — an outcome both would see as a last resort and strive to avoid.

The text provides for none of this. As a result, under the terms May has accepted, the backstop isn’t a backstop at all — it’s the whole deal, the best long-term arrangement Britain can now expect, as good as settled before negotiations on that future economic relationship have even started.
We've established already, Naomi, that you don't even know what our obligations are. If you think that this deal is different from that, then I suggest that you go through the agreement and, point-by-point, explain which ones go above and beyond, and which do not.

Until you do that, your constant cry of "fulfil our obligations and leave" is meaningless.
Khandro's synopsis - as bad as it is - can only get worse.
//there wasn't much better we could get//

How weak and ineffectual that sounds. Are we grateful for whatever they offer? Should we keep a foot in the door at any cost? Mrs May should have told them to shove it in the first place.
Jim, //We've established already, Naomi, that you don't even know what our obligations are. //

No Jim, we haven't established that. You're making it up again.
The reason she did not is the same reason that nobody has taken up the mantle and thrown her out already: Britain simply can't afford to rip itself away from the EU without sustaining a serious hit, and nobody wants to be blamed for that.

Brexit was anyway a bad idea, and it has been carried out atrociously.
Not making anything up -- I asked you on an earlier thread, and you seemed unable to answer beyond something vague about financial obligations. Never mind that this underestimates their scope, but it also ignored out all of the legal, moral, political, etc... obligations.

Jim, //Britain simply can't afford to rip itself away from the EU //

So contrary to your previous claims, Britain can 'rip' itself away from the EU.
Jim, as I understand it our obligations are predominately financial - and even those aren't set in stone. You did blather on about other issues, but they're not legal 'obligations', rather that which could and should be resolved by courteous and reciprocal agreement - which is why I passed over it. I didn't have time to go around the houses with you again.

1 to 20 of 41rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The Brexit "deal" A Synopsis;

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.