Yep - May has done herself, the Conservative party and the country as a whole a huge favour in accepting that the EU27 are in charge of an orderly Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
And freedom of movement will end. The central demand of the people who voted for Brexit, rather than those who kept the flame burning in the willderness, will be kept.
Ending freedom of movement covers a multitude of sins. It could end up being meaningful, it could end up be symbolic. TBD. If it is the former then many Brexit voters will be pleased. If it is the latter, they will not be.
FOM will be replaced by a work permits system
Yes. FoM in all but name.
Maybe because I've worked abroad I'm just blind to all the folderol over Freedom of Movement. Most countries allow incomers if they have a job and can support themselves. This seems reasonable to me.
In terms of the British diaspora, we're mostly (~80%) in the Anglosphere. The remainder are concentrated largely in four entirely unsurprising countries; Ireland, France, Germany and Spain.
In my view its a bit daft to equate 'Freedom of Movement' with work permits. They're really not the same thing. Equally, Mrs May hasn't addressed the issue of mass immigration; even in xenephobic racist Brexit Britain, we still had net migration of ~230k people, with another 150k from natural growth.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
And in any event nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (paragraph 5). Its a classic piece of EU fudge. Sounds ponderous, means nothing.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It's not in the event of no agreement, it's in the event that the final agreement doesn't include options A or B, which is not really plausible.
It's all a bit silly, TBH, since as the UK has been saying all along the border question depends on the trade deal.
On FoM it will depend on what "full alignment with the rules (on FoM)" actually means. Royal Blue seems to not get that we've said no border between ROI and the UK, and between NI and GB. Which is why we've capitulated on the deal and said we will fully align with the rules of the SM and CU so that we can effectively be part of them after we leave.
The EU have always made it clear that there is no cherry picking of the SM rules. We've committed to full alignment on those rules. Someone will have to blink, and the EU have repeatedly demonstrated that they will maintain the integrity of the rules. We either obey or there is no deal. And if there is no deal then there is no agreement on the Irish issue. And the whole thing falls apart again with regards to phase 2 of the talks.
And if we have to accept all the rules of the SM and CU people will begin to wonder what is the point of leaving.....
Well.... What it underlines is that the 'have your cake and eat it' Brexit was never possible. Thus, in order to avoid economic chaos May has had to take this route. She likely always knew that a 'no deal' Brexit was not desirable AT ALL.
Meanwhile, those who believe immigration to be the worst thing EVER won't be too happy. I know Brexiteers who literally thought that Brexit meant that all the Eastern Europeans would be 'kicked out.' They weren't talking about having more freedom on trade, for example.
Broadly how I see it. We will leave the SM/CU but continue to be fully compliant with their rules. We "leave" but continue to act exactly the way we did before we left.
Which as you say means no trade deals elsewhere. We cannot do anything which makes us non-compliant with SM rules or the agreement falls apart.
And I keep banging on about FoM because this is the bit that I keep being told so important to so many bigots and racists. They want an end to "foreigners". And yes, we will end FoM. And replace it with "FoM" because we have to be fully aligned to all 4 pillars if we want a deal on services (which we have to have). So we will have formally stopped Freedom of Movement. And replaced it with no restrictions on EU nationals coming to work here.
Anyone happy...?
Yep I am happy (apart from my bet with Richard N). And you are wrong on the no trade deals. We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
This deal means we are indeed leaving the EU in spite of all those saying it won't happen and it also means we will be doing so on terms that will make Brexit a success in spite of all the doom merchants.
Oh and May is still crap by the way. She has made far too many fundamental errors in this process and made it far more complicated than it needed to be.
Excellent morning for May and the country. A border deal reached and the European Commission has now recommended sufficient progress has been made to move to FTA talks and even Sir Keir Starmer on Sky news now says he is 'pleased' progress has been made and accepts the role for the ECJ on Citizens rights etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42277040
Hard Brexiteers are furious of course, Aaron Banks has called the deal 'a betrayal of 17.5 million Leave voters' but May was always going to have to break with them eventually to make progress with the EU
There are many strands of Brexiteers just as there were of leavers. Despite the fantasies of Banks, Farage and others they were never a cohesive, unified bloc. This one, for example, is quite content with what May has done. What she needs to do is find a consensus that a comfortable majority of both leavers and remainers can live with. This is a good first step.
The FTA that ends free movement she is aiming for is that consensus
Yes, as I have said all along, from the start she's got the big picture right. The big development is that the EU is now playing ball, which is why I said yesterday that I was more optimistic than I'd been at any time since the referendum.
Yes I am also optimistic this morning, diehard Remainers and diehard Leavers will be unhappy everyone else satisfied.
Excellent morning for May and the country. A border deal reached and the European Commission has now recommended sufficient progress has been made to move to FTA talks and even Sir Keir Starmer on Sky news now says he is 'pleased' progress has been made and accepts the role for the ECJ on Citizens rights etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42277040
Hard Brexiteers are furious of course, Aaron Banks has called the deal 'a betrayal of 17.5 million Leave voters' but May was always going to have to break with them eventually to make progress with the EU
There are many strands of Brexiteers just as there were of leavers. Despite the fantasies of Banks, Farage and others they were never a cohesive, unified bloc. This one, for example, is quite content with what May has done. What she needs to do is find a consensus that a comfortable majority of both leavers and remainers can live with. This is a good first step.
The FTA that ends free movement she is aiming for is that consensus
Yes, as I have said all along, from the start she's got the big picture right. The big development is that the EU is now playing ball, which is why I said yesterday that I was more optimistic than I'd been at any time since the referendum.
The EU was always going to play ball if we provided what it needed. We have.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It means we've pre-agreed a fallback position for the event of no other agreement being made. Kind of an insurance policy.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It's all a bit silly, TBH, since as the UK has been saying all along the border question depends on the trade deal.
Which effectively the EU have now conceded.....jolly good.....
Excellent morning for May and the country. A border deal reached and the European Commission has now recommended sufficient progress has been made to move to FTA talks and even Sir Keir Starmer on Sky news now says he is 'pleased' progress has been made and accepts the role for the ECJ on Citizens rights etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42277040
Hard Brexiteers are furious of course, Aaron Banks has called the deal 'a betrayal of 17.5 million Leave voters' but May was always going to have to break with them eventually to make progress with the EU
There are many strands of Brexiteers just as there were of leavers. Despite the fantasies of Banks, Farage and others they were never a cohesive, unified bloc. This one, for example, is quite content with what May has done. What she needs to do is find a consensus that a comfortable majority of both leavers and remainers can live with. This is a good first step.
The FTA that ends free movement she is aiming for is that consensus
Yep. And she seems more on target for that this morning than she has to date. It is a prize worth fighting and even paying for.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
Yes, you are right, but that is not why it is there. The EU will just declare that any suggestions from the UK are not capable of avoiding a hard border so we have to accept alignment. We could walk away, but by now it must be obvious to everyone that May will never do so. So she will have to concede alignment which is what the EU wanted all along. Without any benefits, of course.
Broadly how I see it. We will leave the SM/CU but continue to be fully compliant with their rules. We "leave" but continue to act exactly the way we did before we left.
Which as you say means no trade deals elsewhere. We cannot do anything which makes us non-compliant with SM rules or the agreement falls apart.
And I keep banging on about FoM because this is the bit that I keep being told so important to so many bigots and racists. They want an end to "foreigners". And yes, we will end FoM. And replace it with "FoM" because we have to be fully aligned to all 4 pillars if we want a deal on services (which we have to have). So we will have formally stopped Freedom of Movement. And replaced it with no restrictions on EU nationals coming to work here.
Anyone happy...?
Yep I am happy (apart from my bet with Richard N). And you are wrong on the no trade deals. We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
This deal means we are indeed leaving the EU in spite of all those saying it won't happen and it also means we will be doing so on terms that will make Brexit a success in spite of all the doom merchants.
Oh and May is still crap by the way. She has made far too many fundamental errors in this process and made it far more complicated than it needed to be.
The biggest problem she had was the election result and the loss of her majority. It has made it much harder to override objectors, whether from NI or, more often, within her own party. Its been a tough hand to play but other than picking someone competent rather than Davis (presumably on the basis that he could deliver the nutters) to be the lead negotiator I think she could have done worse. If phase 2 proceeds relatively smoothly I think history will give her a better press than she has had to date.
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It's not in the event of no agreement, it's in the event that the final agreement doesn't include options A or B, which is not really plausible.
It's all a bit silly, TBH, since as the UK has been saying all along the border question depends on the trade deal.
In the event of an overall deal being reached, we have committed in writing to there being no change to the status of the Irish border, unless the Irish government agrees. It will be exactly as it is now. That is what the Irish government wanted. The UK government has also agreed with the DUP that the effect of this will be UK-wide, not just in NI.
The EU was always going to play ball if we provided what it needed. We have.
We've agreed to pay them some dosh, much of it for a transition period, but not as much as they were claiming to want. They've agreed to drop the nonsense about the ECJ having jurisdiction in the UK. They've agreed that all the nonsense they used to spout about not being able even to start trade talks until after we left was nonsense. They've agreed the principle of a transition deal to avoid the cliff edge. They've effectively agreed that the Irish question can't be discussed until we know more about the trade deal arrangements (but that's just common sense rather than a concession).
In other words, they've stopped being daft and are now agreeing to start the talks which they should and could have started a year ago. It's very late to do so, but better late than never. I've no idea why they insisted on the logical contortion of doing things backwards, but the good news is that Theresa May and DD have managed to navigate their way through the bureaucratic maze.
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
I see that as a good thing, particularly on EU food standards.
Broadly how I see it. We will leave the SM/CU but continue to be fully compliant with their rules. We "leave" but continue to act exactly the way we did before we left.
Which as you say means no trade deals elsewhere. We cannot do anything which makes us non-compliant with SM rules or the agreement falls apart.
And I keep banging on about FoM because this is the bit that I keep being told so important to so many bigots and racists. They want an end to "foreigners". And yes, we will end FoM. And replace it with "FoM" because we have to be fully aligned to all 4 pillars if we want a deal on services (which we have to have). So we will have formally stopped Freedom of Movement. And replaced it with no restrictions on EU nationals coming to work here.
Anyone happy...?
Yep I am happy (apart from my bet with Richard N). And you are wrong on the no trade deals. We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
This deal means we are indeed leaving the EU in spite of all those saying it won't happen and it also means we will be doing so on terms that will make Brexit a success in spite of all the doom merchants.
Oh and May is still crap by the way. She has made far too many fundamental errors in this process and made it far more complicated than it needed to be.
The biggest problem she had was the election result and the loss of her majority. It has made it much harder to override objectors, whether from NI or, more often, within her own party. Its been a tough hand to play but other than picking someone competent rather than Davis (presumably on the basis that he could deliver the nutters) to be the lead negotiator I think she could have done worse. If phase 2 proceeds relatively smoothly I think history will give her a better press than she has had to date.
Yes May is clearly a far better negotiator than Cameron even if she has not matched the overall majority he enjoyed for a year
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
Sky news says UK exit bill agreed at £35 to £39 billion, lower than some forecasts
And larger than some others, ending up entirely in line with what the vast majority have been saying for ages. Even the FT guys behind the 100billion euros estimate had it as potentially £35-40billion net.
I am baffled by why all this is being interpreted as a win for May. Maybe we've been so starved of good news for so long that we'll reach for anything that doesn't so obviously stink of ineptitude.
Arlene Foster 'pleased' to see changes in the text of the new Brexit deal with a new paragraph promising unfettered access to rest of the UK for NI reports Sky news
The EU was always going to play ball if we provided what it needed. We have.
We've agreed to pay them some dosh, much of it for a transition period, but not as much as they were claiming to want. They've agreed to drop the nonsense about the ECJ having jurisdiction in the UK. They've agreed that all the nonsense they used to spout about not being able even to start trade talks until after we left was nonsense. They've agreed the principle of a transition deal to avoid the cliff edge. They've effectively agreed that the Irish question can't be discussed until we know more about the trade deal arrangements (but that's just common sense rather than a concession).
In other words, they've stopped being daft and are now agreeing to start the talks which they should and could have started a year ago. It's very late to do so, but better late than never. I've no idea why they insisted on the logical contortion of doing things backwards, but the good news is that Theresa May and DD have managed to navigate their way through the bureaucratic maze.
The EU was always going to play ball if we provided what it needed. We have.
We've agreed to pay them some dosh, much of it for a transition period, but not as much as they were claiming to want. They've agreed to drop the nonsense about the ECJ having jurisdiction in the UK. They've agreed that all the nonsense they used to spout about not being able even to start trade talks until after we left was nonsense. They've agreed the principle of a transition deal to avoid the cliff edge. They've effectively agreed that the Irish question can't be discussed until we know more about the trade deal arrangements (but that's just common sense rather than a concession).
In other words, they've stopped being daft and are now agreeing to start the talks which they should and could have started a year ago. It's very late to do so, but better late than never. I've no idea why they insisted on the logical contortion of doing things backwards, but the good news is that Theresa May and DD have managed to navigate their way through the bureaucratic maze.
What it comes down to is that they finally accept we are going to leave. So the focus has shifted to the how and future relationship where it should have been from the start. As I said earlier it is not entirely their fault that they have taken so long to be persuaded of this. The remainer dominated media, the position of the Labour party (at least on alternate days), the minority government, all gave them cause to hope that we would not reach this point. A real hostage to fortune but I think this will get easier now.
Yep - May has done herself, the Conservative party and the country as a whole a huge favour in accepting that the EU27 are in charge of an orderly Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
And freedom of movement will end. The central demand of the people who voted for Brexit, rather than those who kept the flame burning in the willderness, will be kept.
Ending freedom of movement covers a multitude of sins. It could end up being meaningful, it could end up be symbolic. TBD. If it is the former then many Brexit voters will be pleased. If it is the latter, they will not be.
FOM will be replaced by a work permits system
Yes. FoM in all but name.
Given the insanity of our benefits system - that's all we can do. Freedom of Movement to Denmark/ France / Germany doesn't allow you to claim benefits from day 2.
When we look back in history Blair / Brown will be regarded as the worst Prime Ministers of all time..
Clearly you don't know your history. Top of that list is Anthony Eden
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
This is quite simply wrong. Nothing in the agreement would prevent us importing salmonella-free chicken from the US, if we decide that's a good idea. That includes into NI. The only thing we've agreed to is that there will not be customs posts checking that such chickens won't get to the other side. Since you don't need customs posts for that, this is hardly a big deal. After all the incentives for large scale chicken-smuggling are never going to be significant - the gangs will focus, as they do now, on booze'n'fags, where we don't have anything like regulatory alignment at the moment.
How about a kilo crate of Brexit Fudge as a gift from PB leavers to Mr Meeks.? £25 inc shipping, won't take many of us clubbing together to make that very cheap.
Just imagine his glee when it's delivered to his office, and he feels the leaver love!
Broadly how I see it. We will leave the SM/CU but continue to be fully compliant with their rules. We "leave" but continue to act exactly the way we did before we left.
Which as you say means no trade deals elsewhere. We cannot do anything which makes us non-compliant with SM rules or the agreement falls apart.
And I keep banging on about FoM because this is the bit that I keep being told so important to so many bigots and racists. They want an end to "foreigners". And yes, we will end FoM. And replace it with "FoM" because we have to be fully aligned to all 4 pillars if we want a deal on services (which we have to have). So we will have formally stopped Freedom of Movement. And replaced it with no restrictions on EU nationals coming to work here.
Anyone happy...?
Yep I am happy (apart from my bet with Richard N). And you are wrong on the no trade deals. We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
This deal means we are indeed leaving the EU in spite of all those saying it won't happen and it also means we will be doing so on terms that will make Brexit a success in spite of all the doom merchants.
Oh and May is still crap by the way. She has made far too many fundamental errors in this process and made it far more complicated than it needed to be.
The biggest problem she had was the election result and the loss of her majority. It has made it much harder to override objectors, whether from NI or, more often, within her own party. Its been a tough hand to play but other than picking someone competent rather than Davis (presumably on the basis that he could deliver the nutters) to be the lead negotiator I think she could have done worse. If phase 2 proceeds relatively smoothly I think history will give her a better press than she has had to date.
I might be in a party of one on this - and I don't doubt that initially the result was a huge knock to the PMs confidence - but the outcome of June actually made it easier to negotiate with Brussels than if she had a majority of 150 saying "stuff 'em....WTO will do for us". Having the foil of the DUP on the Irish border issue and the "Hard Brexiteers" threatening to replace her allowed her to say "It's me - or Boris. Who do you want to deal with?" And the mood music coming out of EU capitals was that they would rather deal with her. Surprise surprise.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It's not in the event of no agreement, it's in the event that the final agreement doesn't include options A or B, which is not really plausible.
It's all a bit silly, TBH, since as the UK has been saying all along the border question depends on the trade deal.
In the event of an overall deal being reached, we have committed in writing to there being no change to the status of the Irish border, unless the Irish government agrees. It will be exactly as it is now. That is what the Irish government wanted. The UK government has also agreed with the DUP that the effect of this will be UK-wide, not just in NI.
What if the "overall" deal includes provision for there to be changes made to the border arrangements? "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". You have to dress everything up as if you are one of "them" - "them" being anyone but the Brits.
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
Do you actually realise that chlorinated chicken is safer than what we eat, or do you just repeat it because it sounds scary?
What exactly is wrong with using chemicals to kill harmful germs that might attach to food?
The argument over chlorinated chicken is simply about agricultural protectionism, not food safety. Which even the EUs internal experts have conceded.
The EU was always going to play ball if we provided what it needed. We have.
We've agreed to pay them some dosh, much of it for a transition period, but not as much as they were claiming to want. They've agreed to drop the nonsense about the ECJ having jurisdiction in the UK. They've agreed that all the nonsense they used to spout about not being able even to start trade talks until after we left was nonsense. They've agreed the principle of a transition deal to avoid the cliff edge. They've effectively agreed that the Irish question can't be discussed until we know more about the trade deal arrangements (but that's just common sense rather than a concession).
In other words, they've stopped being daft and are now agreeing to start the talks which they should and could have started a year ago. It's very late to do so, but better late than never. I've no idea why they insisted on the logical contortion of doing things backwards, but the good news is that Theresa May and DD have managed to navigate their way through the bureaucratic maze.
Epic spin, Richard, and good on you for doing it!! On a day like this I am happy for you to seek victories wherever you can find them. For, indeed, today the UK has won, because the Brexit loons have lost.
However, the EU's final goal was not to ensure that the ECJ continued to have a remit in the UK, it was to ensure it got guarantees that the rights currently enjoyed by EU citizens in the UK would be protected. It got that. On Ireland, it now has a line in the sand - no change to the status of the Irish border without the Irish government's agreement. And on the money, it got what it needed, too.
Ironically, today also kills off the hopes that some of the more extreme Remainers might have had about the UK staying in the EU by default. Having got what it wants, the EU is now essentially in regular territory: negotiating an FTA with a third country. There is no ioncentive for it to do anything other than play a totally straight bat. It is up to us to decide what we want and how much we are prepared to compromise on our red lines in order to get it.
I suspect that we will find out in future years that a lot of this was choreographed. Mrs May needed to show pragmatic Brexiteers (the loons will never be convinced) that she had done all she could and there was no more available. The truth is that what has been agreed to day could have been agreed a while back - but only if May had faced the entire Tory Brexit brigade down. Doing it this way has cost some time, but it has kept things together. As I say down-thread, today is a very good day for her, for the Conservative party and for the country. Disaster has been averted.
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
I see that as a good thing, particularly on EU food standards.
Obviously you have not been following news on US food standards, otherwise you definitely wouldn't be saying that. Chlorinated chicken, meat products so full of injected medicals, poor standard of animal care and slaughter, interesting methods of processed food production and all that before talking about GM. True story, a group of UK pig farmers were touring the States, get ideas, look at machinery, etc., and wanted to have a look in at an intensive pig farm - weren't allowed (and no, it wasn't from hygiene standards). If I remember the article correctly, they later discovered that using the same methods in the UK would have got the farmers put in prison for animal cruelty.
The biggest problem she had was the election result and the loss of her majority. It has made it much harder to override objectors, whether from NI or, more often, within her own party. Its been a tough hand to play but other than picking someone competent rather than Davis (presumably on the basis that he could deliver the nutters) to be the lead negotiator I think she could have done worse. If phase 2 proceeds relatively smoothly I think history will give her a better press than she has had to date.
I might be in a party of one on this - and I don't doubt that initially the result was a huge knock to the PMs confidence - but the outcome of June actually made it easier to negotiate with Brussels than if she had a majority of 150 saying "stuff 'em....WTO will do for us". Having the foil of the DUP on the Irish border issue and the "Hard Brexiteers" threatening to replace her allowed her to say "It's me - or Boris. Who do you want to deal with?" And the mood music coming out of EU capitals was that they would rather deal with her. Surprise surprise.
I can see what you are saying but I don't agree. May always wanted a deal. Every sensible person does. The alternative is just too much uncertainty. She has found it difficult to deliver that deal because she has been held hostage by cliques which range from the mildly obsessive to the bat shit insane on both sides of the argument.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
This is quite simply wrong. Nothing in the agreement would prevent us importing salmonella-free chicken from the US, if we decide that's a good idea. That includes into NI. The only thing we've agreed to is that there will not be customs posts checking that such chickens won't get to the other side. Since you don't need customs posts for that, this is hardly a big deal. After all the incentives for large scale chicken-smuggling are never going to be significant - the gangs will focus, as they do now, on booze'n'fags, where we don't have anything like regulatory alignment at the moment.
Nope, we have agreed to regulatory alignment in areas covered by the GFA.
So at 05:00 GMT on Friday morning, May gets an agreement, very little detail given, so leaves plenty of time for the Sunday papers to get hold of it and dissect it. The record of the present Cabinet and Cabinet Office leaves much to be desired, like competence for a start.
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
I still say that you and I should have been negotiating this deal SO. We would have been at this point months ago.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It seems that Clause 49 allows the EU to drag their heels, as has been noted on here. In which case, it seems that things will continue as has been the case (eg. regulatory alignment). The Irish will (might) say - we want to adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022 and NI must therefore adopt it also. In order to maintain the integrity of the UK, the UK must then adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022.
The phrasing of the 40s paragraphs is interesting also in that there is a distinction between the EU Internal Market (capitalised) and the UK internal market (not capitalised).
This is having all the directives, but not being within the single market, as has been noted above also from different ends of the spectrum ( @RochdalePioneers and @archer101au).
'Following Theresa May’s crunch Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, she announced that Britain “will honour commitments” made during its EU membership and deliver a payment of €20 billion to the EU.
Now, the final bill is expected to be twice this amount, and Britain would need to issue an agreement-in-principle on this to begin trade talks, senior EU diplomats confirmed to a Sunday paper.'
On FoM it will depend on what "full alignment with the rules (on FoM)" actually means. Royal Blue seems to not get that we've said no border between ROI and the UK, and between NI and GB. Which is why we've capitulated on the deal and said we will fully align with the rules of the SM and CU so that we can effectively be part of them after we leave.
The EU have always made it clear that there is no cherry picking of the SM rules. We've committed to full alignment on those rules. Someone will have to blink, and the EU have repeatedly demonstrated that they will maintain the integrity of the rules. We either obey or there is no deal. And if there is no deal then there is no agreement on the Irish issue. And the whole thing falls apart again with regards to phase 2 of the talks.
I think you're the one showing a lack of understanding.
We've not committed to no border; we've committed to no hard border. They are not the same thing, at all.
Again, you don't understand the Single Market. The EU has made it blindingly clear; we are a member, or we're not. There is no 'effectively being part of the Single Market'; we are in or out, and we will be out.
The thing that makes the Single Market special is that regulatory conformity is assessed at source; that's why no customs borders are necessary between member states. We are leaving that system, so some kind of controls will be required to enforce conformity of goods that enter the Single Market.
I can see us submitting to EU phytosanitary standads and assessment at source to avoid hold-ups of agricultural goods. That does not mean we have to be part of the CAP.
Many of the stated objectives of Conservative Brexiteers won't be fulfilled thanks to the obligations the United Kingdom has agreed to secure sufficient progress. Yes, the United Kingdom is out of the single market and customs union in law – but agreeing to the necessary alignment in order to preserve the open Irish border means that "our laws" will still be controlled de facto if not de jure in Brussels.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
This is quite simply wrong. Nothing in the agreement would prevent us importing salmonella-free chicken from the US, if we decide that's a good idea. That includes into NI. The only thing we've agreed to is that there will not be customs posts checking that such chickens won't get to the other side. Since you don't need customs posts for that, this is hardly a big deal. After all the incentives for large scale chicken-smuggling are never going to be significant - the gangs will focus, as they do now, on booze'n'fags, where we don't have anything like regulatory alignment at the moment.
I think you're flogging a dead horse debating with SO. But I admire your restraint and the inherent optimism in doing so as I believe most remoaners will take their pessimism with them to their graves.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It seems that Clause 49 allows the EU to drag their heels, as has been noted on here. In which case, it seems that things will continue as has been the case (eg. regulatory alignment). The Irish will (might) say - we want to adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022 and NI must therefore adopt it also. In order to maintain the integrity of the UK, the UK must then adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022.
The phrasing of the 40s paragraphs is interesting also in that there is a distinction between the EU Internal Market (capitalised) and the UK internal market (not capitalised).
This is having all the directives, but not being within the single market, as has been noted above also from different ends of the spectrum ( @RochdalePioneers and @archer101au).
What am I missing?
Well, if you look at the GFA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement you won't find a lot about chickens. Or frankly anything to do with trade, regulations or EU law. It is to do with constitutional structures creating areas of agreed cooperation, policing and disarmament. It is a bit of a stretch to say that because we won't disturb that we will have to comply with all EU law.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
This is quite simply wrong. Nothing in the agreement would prevent us importing salmonella-free chicken from the US, if we decide that's a good idea. That includes into NI. The only thing we've agreed to is that there will not be customs posts checking that such chickens won't get to the other side. Since you don't need customs posts for that, this is hardly a big deal. After all the incentives for large scale chicken-smuggling are never going to be significant - the gangs will focus, as they do now, on booze'n'fags, where we don't have anything like regulatory alignment at the moment.
I think you're flogging a dead horse debating with SO. But I admire your restraint and the inherent optimism in doing so as I believe most remoaners will take their pessimism with them to their graves.
We're literally celebrating May for accepting the exact figure the EU advanced two months ago. Her big success is that she didn't manage to negotiate the figure up!
'Following Theresa May’s crunch Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, she announced that Britain “will honour commitments” made during its EU membership and deliver a payment of €20 billion to the EU.
Now, the final bill is expected to be twice this amount, and Britain would need to issue an agreement-in-principle on this to begin trade talks, senior EU diplomats confirmed to a Sunday paper.'
Have you never haggled over a carpet? The concept of each side making bids, ultimately reaching a middle ground - that seems to have escaped you.....
I've just scanned the citizens-rights part of the agreement, and if I'm not mistaken it looks as though we have conceded on one important point: we were asking for the rights of UK citizens currently living in one EU state to extend to other EU states (eg someone currently living in France could move to Spain). If I've understood correctly on a quick read, we haven't got that.
Ironically, today also kills off the hopes that some of the more extreme Remainers might have had about the UK staying in the EU by default. Having got what it wants, the EU is now essentially in regular territory: negotiating an FTA with a third country. There is no ioncentive for it to do anything other than play a totally straight bat. It is up to us to decide what we want and how much we are prepared to compromise on our red lines in order to get it.
I suspect that we will find out in future years that a lot of this was choreographed. Mrs May needed to show pragmatic Brexiteers (the loons will never be convinced) that she had done all she could and there was no more available. The truth is that what has been agreed to day could have been agreed a while back - but only if May had faced the entire Tory Brexit brigade down. Doing it this way has cost some time, but it has kept things together. As I say down-thread, today is a very good day for her, for the Conservative party and for the country. Disaster has been averted.
It does seem okay, and the inertia is strong, but there's always the potential for some almighty row to derail things. So don't count your chickens.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It seems that Clause 49 allows the EU to drag their heels, as has been noted on here. In which case, it seems that things will continue as has been the case (eg. regulatory alignment). The Irish will (might) say - we want to adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022 and NI must therefore adopt it also. In order to maintain the integrity of the UK, the UK must then adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022.
The phrasing of the 40s paragraphs is interesting also in that there is a distinction between the EU Internal Market (capitalised) and the UK internal market (not capitalised).
This is having all the directives, but not being within the single market, as has been noted above also from different ends of the spectrum ( @RochdalePioneers and @archer101au).
What am I missing?
Well, if you look at the GFA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement you won't find a lot about chickens. Or frankly anything to do with trade, regulations or EU law. It is to do with constitutional structures creating areas of agreed cooperation, policing and disarmament. It is a bit of a stretch to say that because we won't disturb that we will have to comply with all EU law.
What's a stretch? On the mechanics of what seems to have been agreed, Ireland needs only to say we want this particular EU reg, and then NI has to follow. And then the UK has to follow.
Saying the UK doesn't want the EU reg would mean that there would be divergence between NI and ROI.
'Following Theresa May’s crunch Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, she announced that Britain “will honour commitments” made during its EU membership and deliver a payment of €20 billion to the EU.
Now, the final bill is expected to be twice this amount, and Britain would need to issue an agreement-in-principle on this to begin trade talks, senior EU diplomats confirmed to a Sunday paper.'
Have you never haggled over a carpet? The concept of each side making bids, ultimately reaching a middle ground - that seems to have escaped you.....
How is it a middle ground?
Theresa May, September: We'll give you 20 billion. The EU, September: Give us 40 billion and we can move to trade talks. .... Theresa May, December: We'll give you 40 billion. PB: She's a negotiating genius!
'Following Theresa May’s crunch Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, she announced that Britain “will honour commitments” made during its EU membership and deliver a payment of €20 billion to the EU.
Now, the final bill is expected to be twice this amount, and Britain would need to issue an agreement-in-principle on this to begin trade talks, senior EU diplomats confirmed to a Sunday paper.'
Have you never haggled over a carpet? The concept of each side making bids, ultimately reaching a middle ground - that seems to have escaped you.....
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
This is quite simply wrong. Nothing in the agreement would prevent us importing salmonella-free chicken from the US, if we decide that's a good idea. That includes into NI. The only thing we've agreed to is that there will not be customs posts checking that such chickens won't get to the other side. Since you don't need customs posts for that, this is hardly a big deal. After all the incentives for large scale chicken-smuggling are never going to be significant - the gangs will focus, as they do now, on booze'n'fags, where we don't have anything like regulatory alignment at the moment.
I think you're flogging a dead horse debating with SO. But I admire your restraint and the inherent optimism in doing so as I believe most remoaners will take their pessimism with them to their graves.
Stop moaning.
I was observing and I apologise if it looked like I was moaning.
- Control of immigration - No role for the EU court - An exit bill lower than even the low end of the 40-60 billion range everyone was expecting - A solution for Northern Ireland - Regulation alignment only for GFA areas - UK responsibility for making that alignment happen (meaning no automatic application of rules, likely wiggle room for application, and the ability to foot drag perpetually in difficult areas) - Remainers feeling it's a win of a sensible Brexit, giving them catharsis from the unhinged hostility against Brexit that led them to consider Corbyn
Given she doesn't have a majority, I would say May has done a very good job in hard circumstances.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
This is quite simply wrong. Nothing in the agreement would prevent us importing salmonella-free chicken from the US, if we decide that's a good idea. That includes into NI. The only thing we've agreed to is that there will not be customs posts checking that such chickens won't get to the other side. Since you don't need customs posts for that, this is hardly a big deal. After all the incentives for large scale chicken-smuggling are never going to be significant - the gangs will focus, as they do now, on booze'n'fags, where we don't have anything like regulatory alignment at the moment.
I think you're flogging a dead horse debating with SO. But I admire your restraint and the inherent optimism in doing so as I believe most remoaners will take their pessimism with them to their graves.
Stop moaning.
I was observing and I apologise if it looked like I was moaning.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It seems that Clause 49 allows the EU to drag their heels, as has been noted on here. In which case, it seems that things will continue as has been the case (eg. regulatory alignment). The Irish will (might) say - we want to adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022 and NI must therefore adopt it also. In order to maintain the integrity of the UK, the UK must then adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022.
The phrasing of the 40s paragraphs is interesting also in that there is a distinction between the EU Internal Market (capitalised) and the UK internal market (not capitalised).
This is having all the directives, but not being within the single market, as has been noted above also from different ends of the spectrum ( @RochdalePioneers and @archer101au).
What am I missing?
Well, if you look at the GFA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement you won't find a lot about chickens. Or frankly anything to do with trade, regulations or EU law. It is to do with constitutional structures creating areas of agreed cooperation, policing and disarmament. It is a bit of a stretch to say that because we won't disturb that we will have to comply with all EU law.
What's a stretch? On the mechanics of what seems to have been agreed, Ireland needs only to say we want this particular EU reg, and then NI has to follow. And then the UK has to follow.
Saying the UK doesn't want the EU reg would mean that there would be divergence between NI and ROI.
Only if that regulation refers to something we trade in with Ireland and even then only if we cannot agree on an equivalence.
And if Ireland start to make too many of these demands they might quickly find we are looking at other sources for the goods we trade with them.
We're literally celebrating May for accepting the exact figure the EU advanced two months ago. Her big success is that she didn't manage to negotiate the figure up!
The number of 100bn gross and 60bn was floated around originally. This is much closer to May's first offer of 20bn.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
This is quite simply wrong. Nothing in the agreement would prevent us importing salmonella-free chicken from the US, if we decide that's a good idea. That includes into NI. The only thing we've agreed to is that there will not be customs posts checking that such chickens won't get to the other side. Since you don't need customs posts for that, this is hardly a big deal. After all the incentives for large scale chicken-smuggling are never going to be significant - the gangs will focus, as they do now, on booze'n'fags, where we don't have anything like regulatory alignment at the moment.
I think you're flogging a dead horse debating with SO. But I admire your restraint and the inherent optimism in doing so as I believe most remoaners will take their pessimism with them to their graves.
Stop moaning.
I was observing and I apologise if it looked like I was moaning.
Never apologise. Never explain.
I had my fingers crossed. Isn't that what you do when negotiating?
I've just scanned the citizens-rights part of the agreement, and if I'm not mistaken it looks as though we have conceded on one important point: we were asking for the rights of UK citizens currently living in one EU state to extend to other EU states (eg someone currently living in France could move to Spain). If I've understood correctly on a quick read, we haven't got that.
Not sure I see that. The agreement refers to the UK on the one side and the EU on the other. You have to be in a host state on the relevant date but I don't see a restriction on the rights of movement within the EU if you qualify.
OTOH there is clear and express acknowledgement that the UK courts will have due regard to decisions of the CJEU on what citizens rights are even after our departure and there is even going to be a referral mechanism such as we have at the moment of cases to the CJEU to provide "guidance" on what the extent of citizens rights under the agreement are. Some Brexiteers will not be happy with that concession. Personally, I'm not that bothered.
We're literally celebrating May for accepting the exact figure the EU advanced two months ago. Her big success is that she didn't manage to negotiate the figure up!
On a quick read of the agreement we only seem to be complying with existing obligations, as is the EU with returning our share of assets to us, with the one exception of continuing contributions beyond withdrawal until end 2020. However, these payments beyond withdrawal will anyway be necessary if there is a transition agreement up until end 2020.
'Following Theresa May’s crunch Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, she announced that Britain “will honour commitments” made during its EU membership and deliver a payment of €20 billion to the EU.
Now, the final bill is expected to be twice this amount, and Britain would need to issue an agreement-in-principle on this to begin trade talks, senior EU diplomats confirmed to a Sunday paper.'
Have you never haggled over a carpet? The concept of each side making bids, ultimately reaching a middle ground - that seems to have escaped you.....
How is it a middle ground?
Theresa May, September: We'll give you 20 billion. The EU, September: Give us 40 billion and we can move to trade talks. .... Theresa May, December: We'll give you 40 billion. PB: She's a negotiating genius!
"While EU sources have spoken in recent months of £53bn to £58bn, both sides are trying to avoid talking numbers to help the British government deal with the potentially toxic political fallout."
On FoM it will depend on what "full alignment with the rules (on FoM)" actually means. Royal Blue seems to not get that we've said no border between ROI and the UK, and between NI and GB. Which is why we've capitulated on the deal and said we will fully align with the rules of the SM and CU so that we can effectively be part of them after we leave.
The EU have always made it clear that there is no cherry picking of the SM rules. We've committed to full alignment on those rules. Someone will have to blink, and the EU have repeatedly demonstrated that they will maintain the integrity of the rules. We either obey or there is no deal. And if there is no deal then there is no agreement on the Irish issue. And the whole thing falls apart again with regards to phase 2 of the talks.
I think you're the one showing a lack of understanding.
We've not committed to no border; we've committed to no hard border. They are not the same thing, at all.
Again, you don't understand the Single Market. The EU has made it blindingly clear; we are a member, or we're not. There is no 'effectively being part of the Single Market'; we are in or out, and we will be out.
The thing that makes the Single Market special is that regulatory conformity is assessed at source; that's why no customs borders are necessary between member states. We are leaving that system, so some kind of controls will be required to enforce conformity of goods that enter the Single Market.
I can see us submitting to EU phytosanitary standads and assessment at source to avoid hold-ups of agricultural goods. That does not mean we have to be part of the CAP.
Submitting to EU Phytosanitary standards should be a concern. I am not impressed with the integrity of the system.
I am not sure they are adequate to deal with things like Xylella fastidiosa, should it spread beyond Italy, Spain, France and allegedly Germany and Poland now.
I've just scanned the citizens-rights part of the agreement, and if I'm not mistaken it looks as though we have conceded on one important point: we were asking for the rights of UK citizens currently living in one EU state to extend to other EU states (eg someone currently living in France could move to Spain). If I've understood correctly on a quick read, we haven't got that.
Not sure I see that. The agreement refers to the UK on the one side and the EU on the other. You have to be in a host state on the relevant date but I don't see a restriction on the rights of movement within the EU if you qualify.
OTOH there is clear and express acknowledgement that the UK courts will have due regard to decisions of the CJEU on what citizens rights are even after our departure and there is even going to be a referral mechanism such as we have at the moment of cases to the CJEU to provide "guidance" on what the extent of citizens rights under the agreement are. Some Brexiteers will not be happy with that concession. Personally, I'm not that bothered.
It has an 8 year limit. Given that the alternative is an never ending ECJ influence I would say that is well worth it.
It looks like the deal has achieved: - An exit bill lower than even the low end of the 40-60 billion range everyone was expecting .
Why do you people have such short memories? This is just bizarre. The EU explicitly said an offer of 40 billion euros would be needed to advance to trade talks, in September. Two and a half months of negotiations haven't shifted the EU an inch, while our offer doubled to meet their demand exactly.
You're confusing estimates that didn't take into account money given back to the UK with the net payment. E.g. - the FT estimate of 100 billion euros (the highest estimate I know of) explicitly meant a net payment of '£35-40 billion' once everything had been taken account of.
Chlorinated chicken, meat products so full of injected medicals, poor standard of animal care and slaughter, interesting methods of processed food production and all that before talking about GM. True story, a group of UK pig farmers were touring the States, get ideas, look at machinery, etc., and wanted to have a look in at an intensive pig farm - weren't allowed (and no, it wasn't from hygiene standards). If I remember the article correctly, they later discovered that using the same methods in the UK would have got the farmers put in prison for animal cruelty.
This is my day job subject and it's broadly right though I don't know the specific pig story (and would be interested in anyone can link to it). Essentially, the US has very little federal regulation of farm animal standards, so it's down to what the states require, and they vary on what they require, if anything. The chlorination is not in itself a problem; the issue, as Gove has said, is that it's necessary to remedy the effects of the sometimes awful conditions before slaughter. Some US firms are significantly better, e.g. McDonalds. Like many things in the US, progress is corporate-driven rather than legislative.
Whether the agreement makes restrictions easier or harder (live exports are another hot issue) is something the animal NGOs are pondering. The consensus is "Maybe, but not yet quite clear".
We're literally celebrating May for accepting the exact figure the EU advanced two months ago. Her big success is that she didn't manage to negotiate the figure up!
As I said at the time, expectation management was the key, not the raw figure. I think it has worked: we were thinking £50bn so knocking the number down to 40-45, the currency down to euros while they are still a bit cheaper than £s, and being given extended payment terms = win, win, win.
Having said that today feels an awful lot like the 24 hour phony peace you get after an omnishambles budget, before it all falls apart.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It opt EU Directive 210/43/2022.
The phrasing of the 40s paragraphs is interesting also in that there is a distinction between the EU Internal Market (capitalised) and the UK internal market (not capitalised).
This is having all the directives, but not being within the single market, as has been noted above also from different ends of the spectrum ( @RochdalePioneers and @archer101au).
What am I missing?
Well, if you look at the GFA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement you won't find a lot about chickens. Or frankly anything to do with trade, regulations or EU law. It is to do with constitutional structures creating areas of agreed cooperation, policing and disarmament. It is a bit of a stretch to say that because we won't disturb that we will have to comply with all EU law.
If you actually look at the GFA itself, you'll find this:
ANNEX Areas for North-South co-operation and implementation may include the following: 1. Agriculture - animal and plant health. 2. Education - teacher qualifications and exchanges. 3. Transport - strategic transport planning. waste management. 5. Waterways - inland waterways. 6. Social Security/Social Welfare - entitlements of cross-border workers and fraud control. 7. Tourism - promotion, marketing, research, and product development. 8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG, Leader II and their successors. 9. Inland Fisheries. 10. Aquaculture and marine matters 11. Health: accident and emergency services and other related crossborder issues. 12. Urban and rural development. Others to be considered by the shadow North/ South Council.
I'd argue chlorinated chicken is covered by point 1!
Of course, that is the 1998 text - and a lot has been done under the provisions of the GFA since then.
We're literally celebrating May for accepting the exact figure the EU advanced two months ago. Her big success is that she didn't manage to negotiate the figure up!
I distinctly recall the figure being somewhere around 100billion a year ago...
Chlorinated chicken, meat products so full of injected medicals, poor standard of animal care and slaughter, interesting methods of processed food production and all that before talking about GM. True story, a group of UK pig farmers were touring the States, get ideas, look at machinery, etc., and wanted to have a look in at an intensive pig farm - weren't allowed (and no, it wasn't from hygiene standards). If I remember the article correctly, they later discovered that using the same methods in the UK would have got the farmers put in prison for animal cruelty.
This is my day job subject and it's broadly right though I don't know the specific pig story (and would be interested in anyone can link to it). Essentially, the US has very little federal regulation of farm animal standards, so it's down to what the states require, and they vary on what they require, if anything. The chlorination is not in itself a problem; the issue, as Gove has said, is that it's necessary to remedy the effects of the sometimes awful conditions before slaughter. Some US firms are significantly better, e.g. McDonalds. Like many things in the US, progress is corporate-driven rather than legislative.
Whether the agreement makes restrictions easier or harder (live exports are another hot issue) is something the animal NGOs are pondering. The consensus is "Maybe, but not yet quite clear".
There is no way animal cruelty standards are laxer in the US than they are in Romania.
Well I for one am glad that the Irish think it's a victory for them to have agreed that like the UK they won't put up a hard border.
Because the UK has agreed in writing to regulatory alignment as a back stop.
As a back stop which won't be needed, and only to the extent needed to avoid a hard border (which is very little).
The bit I don't quite understand is 'in the event of no agreement, this is the agreement' Surely, if there's no agreement.....there's no agreement.....
It seems that Clause 49 allows the EU to drag their heels, as has been noted on here. In which case, it seems that things will continue as has been the case (eg. regulatory alignment). The Irish will (might) say - we want to adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022 and NI must therefore adopt it also. In order to maintain the integrity of the UK, the UK must then adopt EU Directive 210/43/2022.
The phrasing of the 40s paragraphs is interesting also in that there is a distinction between the EU Internal Market (capitalised) and the UK internal market (not capitalised).
This is having all the directives, but not being within the single market, as has been noted above also from different ends of the spectrum ( @RochdalePioneers and @archer101au).
What am I missing?
Well, if you look at the GFA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement you won't find a lot about chickens. Or frankly anything to do with trade, regulations or EU law. It is to do with constitutional structures creating areas of agreed cooperation, policing and disarmament. It is a bit of a stretch to say that because we won't disturb that we will have to comply with all EU law.
What's a stretch? On the mechanics of what seems to have been agreed, Ireland needs only to say we want this particular EU reg, and then NI has to follow. And then the UK has to follow.
Saying the UK doesn't want the EU reg would mean that there would be divergence between NI and ROI.
Only if that regulation refers to something we trade in with Ireland and even then only if we cannot agree on an equivalence.
And if Ireland start to make too many of these demands they might quickly find we are looking at other sources for the goods we trade with them.
I doubt it will ever come to that. It would require Ireland to piss off its largest trading partner and all of the multinationals who use Ireland as a low tax haven staging point for the UK market.
It looks like the deal has achieved: - An exit bill lower than even the low end of the 40-60 billion range everyone was expecting .
Why do you people have such short memories? This is just bizarre. The EU explicitly said an offer of 40 billion euros would be needed to advance to trade talks, in September. Two and a half months of negotiations haven't shifted the EU an inch, while our offer doubled to meet their demand exactly.
You're confusing estimates that didn't take into account money given back to the UK with the net payment. E.g. - the FT estimate of 100 billion euros (the highest estimate I know of) explicitly meant a net payment of '£35-40 billion' once everything had been taken account of.
The 100 was gross, the 60 was net. Yes, they came down to 45 a while back. 37 is closer to our 20.
Chlorinated chicken, meat products so full of injected medicals, poor standard of animal care and slaughter, interesting methods of processed food production and all that before talking about GM. True story, a group of UK pig farmers were touring the States, get ideas, look at machinery, etc., and wanted to have a look in at an intensive pig farm - weren't allowed (and no, it wasn't from hygiene standards). If I remember the article correctly, they later discovered that using the same methods in the UK would have got the farmers put in prison for animal cruelty.
This is my day job subject and it's broadly right though I don't know the specific pig story (and would be interested in anyone can link to it). Essentially, the US has very little federal regulation of farm animal standards, so it's down to what the states require, and they vary on what they require, if anything. The chlorination is not in itself a problem; the issue, as Gove has said, is that it's necessary to remedy the effects of the sometimes awful conditions before slaughter. Some US firms are significantly better, e.g. McDonalds. Like many things in the US, progress is corporate-driven rather than legislative.
Whether the agreement makes restrictions easier or harder (live exports are another hot issue) is something the animal NGOs are pondering. The consensus is "Maybe, but not yet quite clear".
There is no way animal cruelty standards are laxer in the US than they are in Romania.
As ever its more about whether standards are enforced (or not).
"Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our EU negotiating team and our PM. Rejoice!"
50 billion to the EU in protection money and CJEU oversight for nearly a decade ?
I thought they were red lines for you?
LOL.
> CJEU time-limited to 8 years vs. permanent oversight > 50 billion (potentially) spread over decades, rather than massive lump-sum up front, and ongoing 9 bn per year for all eternity (in profit in 6 years)
I've just scanned the citizens-rights part of the agreement, and if I'm not mistaken it looks as though we have conceded on one important point: we were asking for the rights of UK citizens currently living in one EU state to extend to other EU states (eg someone currently living in France could move to Spain). If I've understood correctly on a quick read, we haven't got that.
Not sure I see that. The agreement refers to the UK on the one side and the EU on the other. You have to be in a host state on the relevant date but I don't see a restriction on the rights of movement within the EU if you qualify.
OTOH there is clear and express acknowledgement that the UK courts will have due regard to decisions of the CJEU on what citizens rights are even after our departure and there is even going to be a referral mechanism such as we have at the moment of cases to the CJEU to provide "guidance" on what the extent of citizens rights under the agreement are. Some Brexiteers will not be happy with that concession. Personally, I'm not that bothered.
It has an 8 year limit. Given that the alternative is an never ending ECJ influence I would say that is well worth it.
8 years to get through our court system and a referral to the CJEU! Good luck with that.
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
We will be making our own trade deals, but only once we have finalised the deal with the EU. If we end up with regulatory alignment across areas like agriculture and energy because the UK has failed to provide an alternative way to ensure the current status of the Irish border, then that will inevitably affect the kind of trade deals we can do. Basically, no chlorinated chicken!!
I still say that you and I should have been negotiating this deal SO. We would have been at this point months ago.
May had to go through a process to get to where we are today. If she had agreed what has been agreed now six months ago a lot of the Brexit-backing Tories on the government benches who are praising her this morning would have been launching missiles. A lot of us have underestimated her. I certainly did. She has done a very good job for the country on this.
'Following Theresa May’s crunch Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, she announced that Britain “will honour commitments” made during its EU membership and deliver a payment of €20 billion to the EU.
Now, the final bill is expected to be twice this amount, and Britain would need to issue an agreement-in-principle on this to begin trade talks, senior EU diplomats confirmed to a Sunday paper.'
Have you never haggled over a carpet? The concept of each side making bids, ultimately reaching a middle ground - that seems to have escaped you.....
How is it a middle ground?
Theresa May, September: We'll give you 20 billion. The EU, September: Give us 40 billion and we can move to trade talks. .... Theresa May, December: We'll give you 40 billion. PB: She's a negotiating genius!
"While EU sources have spoken in recent months of £53bn to £58bn, both sides are trying to avoid talking numbers to help the British government deal with the potentially toxic political fallout."
Your source: “This €40 billion could make sense only if it’s a first step with an openness to discuss further [financial] commitments,” said a diplomat from a small EU country. “It could be enough to say, OK we are ready to move to phase 2, but only if it’s not the final figure.”
And today: 'If the UK wants a transition period beyond 31 December 2020, when the current seven-year EU budget ends, it will have to pay more. The EU is also leaving open the question of whether or not it will seek additional funds in return for the transition period. The money will be paid over time rather than in a lump sum. '
So, nothing has changed except May has acquiesced.
"Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our EU negotiating team and our PM. Rejoice!"
50 billion to the EU in protection money and CJEU oversight for nearly a decade ?
I thought they were red lines for you?
LOL.
> CJEU time-limited to 8 years vs. permanent oversight > 50 billion (potentially) spread over decades, rather than massive lump-sum up front, and ongoing 9 bn per year for all eternity (in profit in 6 years)
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Many of the stated objectives of Conservative Brexiteers won't be fulfilled thanks to the obligations the United Kingdom has agreed to secure sufficient progress. Yes, the United Kingdom is out of the single market and customs union in law – but agreeing to the necessary alignment in order to preserve the open Irish border means that "our laws" will still be controlled de facto if not de jure in Brussels.
Alignment isn't harmonisation. It can mean anything between harmonisation through equivalence to both sides not making a fuss over sufficiently similar laws. And the UK has responsibility for ensuring it, with no apparent EU oversight other than threatening to blow up the whole agreement. That is a long way off single market rule.
Oh, and Remainers will continue to try and troll Leavers by saying we've surrendered to Brussels and the EU will have the whip-hand forever, because they're absolute sad-sacks who've been left with nowhere else to go.
I've just scanned the citizens-rights part of the agreement, and if I'm not mistaken it looks as though we have conceded on one important point: we were asking for the rights of UK citizens currently living in one EU state to extend to other EU states (eg someone currently living in France could move to Spain). If I've understood correctly on a quick read, we haven't got that.
Not sure I see that. The agreement refers to the UK on the one side and the EU on the other. You have to be in a host state on the relevant date but I don't see a restriction on the rights of movement within the EU if you qualify.
OTOH there is clear and express acknowledgement that the UK courts will have due regard to decisions of the CJEU on what citizens rights are even after our departure and there is even going to be a referral mechanism such as we have at the moment of cases to the CJEU to provide "guidance" on what the extent of citizens rights under the agreement are. Some Brexiteers will not be happy with that concession. Personally, I'm not that bothered.
It has an 8 year limit. Given that the alternative is an never ending ECJ influence I would say that is well worth it.
8 years to get through our court system and a referral to the CJEU! Good luck with that.
It's any case initiated within eight years, isn't it? In practice, the ECJ could still be involved into the 2030s.
We will be leaving the CU and will be making our own trade deals.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
No, we will not be making our own trade deals. We will be out of the CU for sure, but still aligned with EU regulations. That will make FTAs with the USA, Australia and NZ all but impossible. The whole point of trade deals is that you accept other countries regulations as 'equivalent' - but the UK won't be able to do that. We cannot accept US agro regulations as 'equivalent' because it would breach our obligations under EU regulations - because there will be no border the EU will not allow us to import items that don't comply with their regulations because there will be no way to stop them entering the EU. So no deals.
I see that as a good thing, particularly on EU food standards.
Obviously you have not been following news on US food standards, otherwise you definitely wouldn't be saying that. Chlorinated chicken, meat products so full of injected medicals, poor standard of animal care and slaughter, interesting methods of processed food production and all that before talking about GM. True story, a group of UK pig farmers were touring the States, get ideas, look at machinery, etc., and wanted to have a look in at an intensive pig farm - weren't allowed (and no, it wasn't from hygiene standards). If I remember the article correctly, they later discovered that using the same methods in the UK would have got the farmers put in prison for animal cruelty.
It is EU food standards keeping out such things that I am pleased by. Europeans care about quality in food in a way the USA does not.
Comments
In terms of the British diaspora, we're mostly (~80%) in the Anglosphere. The remainder are concentrated largely in four entirely unsurprising countries; Ireland, France, Germany and Spain.
In my view its a bit daft to equate 'Freedom of Movement' with work permits. They're really not the same thing. Equally, Mrs May hasn't addressed the issue of mass immigration; even in xenephobic racist Brexit Britain, we still had net migration of ~230k people, with another 150k from natural growth.
It's all a bit silly, TBH, since as the UK has been saying all along the border question depends on the trade deal.
What it underlines is that the 'have your cake and eat it' Brexit was never possible. Thus, in order to avoid economic chaos May has had to take this route. She likely always knew that a 'no deal' Brexit was not desirable AT ALL.
Meanwhile, those who believe immigration to be the worst thing EVER won't be too happy. I know Brexiteers who literally thought that Brexit meant that all the Eastern Europeans would be 'kicked out.' They weren't talking about having more freedom on trade, for example.
The text is written in such a way that any compliance with SM rules is limited to those areas directly affecting Ireland and only if no other solution is found. Both of these issues will be resolved given time so I have no qualms about a sensible compromise at the moment.
This deal means we are indeed leaving the EU in spite of all those saying it won't happen and it also means we will be doing so on terms that will make Brexit a success in spite of all the doom merchants.
Oh and May is still crap by the way. She has made far too many fundamental errors in this process and made it far more complicated than it needed to be.
Applies both ways.
In other words, they've stopped being daft and are now agreeing to start the talks which they should and could have started a year ago. It's very late to do so, but better late than never. I've no idea why they insisted on the logical contortion of doing things backwards, but the good news is that Theresa May and DD have managed to navigate their way through the bureaucratic maze.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/939088296541609984
I am baffled by why all this is being interpreted as a win for May. Maybe we've been so starved of good news for so long that we'll reach for anything that doesn't so obviously stink of ineptitude.
https://twitter.com/junckereu/status/939087373798920192
Just imagine his glee when it's delivered to his office, and he feels the leaver love!
http://www.studio.co.uk/shop/en/studio/personalised-1kg-fudge-crate
What exactly is wrong with using chemicals to kill harmful germs that might attach to food?
The argument over chlorinated chicken is simply about agricultural protectionism, not food safety. Which even the EUs internal experts have conceded.
However, the EU's final goal was not to ensure that the ECJ continued to have a remit in the UK, it was to ensure it got guarantees that the rights currently enjoyed by EU citizens in the UK would be protected. It got that. On Ireland, it now has a line in the sand - no change to the status of the Irish border without the Irish government's agreement. And on the money, it got what it needed, too.
Ironically, today also kills off the hopes that some of the more extreme Remainers might have had about the UK staying in the EU by default. Having got what it wants, the EU is now essentially in regular territory: negotiating an FTA with a third country. There is no ioncentive for it to do anything other than play a totally straight bat. It is up to us to decide what we want and how much we are prepared to compromise on our red lines in order to get it.
I suspect that we will find out in future years that a lot of this was choreographed. Mrs May needed to show pragmatic Brexiteers (the loons will never be convinced) that she had done all she could and there was no more available. The truth is that what has been agreed to day could have been agreed a while back - but only if May had faced the entire Tory Brexit brigade down. Doing it this way has cost some time, but it has kept things together. As I say down-thread, today is a very good day for her, for the Conservative party and for the country. Disaster has been averted.
The phrasing of the 40s paragraphs is interesting also in that there is a distinction between the EU Internal Market (capitalised) and the UK internal market (not capitalised).
This is having all the directives, but not being within the single market, as has been noted above also from different ends of the spectrum ( @RochdalePioneers and @archer101au).
What am I missing?
'Following Theresa May’s crunch Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, she announced that Britain “will honour commitments” made during its EU membership and deliver a payment of €20 billion to the EU.
Now, the final bill is expected to be twice this amount, and Britain would need to issue an agreement-in-principle on this to begin trade talks, senior EU diplomats confirmed to a Sunday paper.'
We've not committed to no border; we've committed to no hard border. They are not the same thing, at all.
Again, you don't understand the Single Market. The EU has made it blindingly clear; we are a member, or we're not. There is no 'effectively being part of the Single Market'; we are in or out, and we will be out.
The thing that makes the Single Market special is that regulatory conformity is assessed at source; that's why no customs borders are necessary between member states. We are leaving that system, so some kind of controls will be required to enforce conformity of goods that enter the Single Market.
I can see us submitting to EU phytosanitary standads and assessment at source to avoid hold-ups of agricultural goods. That does not mean we have to be part of the CAP.
Many of the stated objectives of Conservative Brexiteers won't be fulfilled thanks to the obligations the United Kingdom has agreed to secure sufficient progress. Yes, the United Kingdom is out of the single market and customs union in law – but agreeing to the necessary alignment in order to preserve the open Irish border means that "our laws" will still be controlled de facto if not de jure in Brussels.
Saying the UK doesn't want the EU reg would mean that there would be divergence between NI and ROI.
Theresa May, September: We'll give you 20 billion.
The EU, September: Give us 40 billion and we can move to trade talks.
....
Theresa May, December: We'll give you 40 billion.
PB: She's a negotiating genius!
- Control of immigration
- No role for the EU court
- An exit bill lower than even the low end of the 40-60 billion range everyone was expecting
- A solution for Northern Ireland
- Regulation alignment only for GFA areas
- UK responsibility for making that alignment happen (meaning no automatic application of rules, likely wiggle room for application, and the ability to foot drag perpetually in difficult areas)
- Remainers feeling it's a win of a sensible Brexit, giving them catharsis from the unhinged hostility against Brexit that led them to consider Corbyn
Given she doesn't have a majority, I would say May has done a very good job in hard circumstances.
And if Ireland start to make too many of these demands they might quickly find we are looking at other sources for the goods we trade with them.
OTOH there is clear and express acknowledgement that the UK courts will have due regard to decisions of the CJEU on what citizens rights are even after our departure and there is even going to be a referral mechanism such as we have at the moment of cases to the CJEU to provide "guidance" on what the extent of citizens rights under the agreement are. Some Brexiteers will not be happy with that concession. Personally, I'm not that bothered.
Try this:
https://www.politico.eu/article/e40-billion-not-enough-to-unlock-brexit-talks-say-eu-diplomats/
and this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/uk-and-eu-agree-brexit-divorce-bill-that-could-reach-57bn
"While EU sources have spoken in recent months of £53bn to £58bn, both sides are trying to avoid talking numbers to help the British government deal with the potentially toxic political fallout."
What happens if a baby is born on a ferry crossing from Liverpool to Belfast ?
Does it get EU rights
Submitting to EU Phytosanitary standards should be a concern. I am not impressed with the integrity of the system.
I am not sure they are adequate to deal with things like Xylella fastidiosa, should it spread beyond Italy, Spain, France and allegedly Germany and Poland now.
You're confusing estimates that didn't take into account money given back to the UK with the net payment. E.g. - the FT estimate of 100 billion euros (the highest estimate I know of) explicitly meant a net payment of '£35-40 billion' once everything had been taken account of.
or A citizen of Nowhere?
Whether the agreement makes restrictions easier or harder (live exports are another hot issue) is something the animal NGOs are pondering. The consensus is "Maybe, but not yet quite clear".
Having said that today feels an awful lot like the 24 hour phony peace you get after an omnishambles budget, before it all falls apart.
ANNEX
Areas for North-South co-operation and implementation may include the
following:
1. Agriculture - animal and plant health.
2. Education - teacher qualifications and exchanges.
3. Transport - strategic transport planning.
waste management.
5. Waterways - inland waterways.
6. Social Security/Social Welfare - entitlements of cross-border workers
and fraud control.
7. Tourism - promotion, marketing, research, and product development.
8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG, Leader II and
their successors.
9. Inland Fisheries.
10. Aquaculture and marine matters
11. Health: accident and emergency services and other related crossborder
issues.
12. Urban and rural development.
Others to be considered by the shadow North/ South Council.
I'd argue chlorinated chicken is covered by point 1!
Of course, that is the 1998 text - and a lot has been done under the provisions of the GFA since then.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
Continuing EU payments beyond withdrawal to have a transition period of being semi detached 2 years x 10bn a year = another £20bn
Total net £40bn - over time.
> CJEU time-limited to 8 years vs. permanent oversight
> 50 billion (potentially) spread over decades, rather than massive lump-sum up front, and ongoing 9 bn per year for all eternity (in profit in 6 years)
Like I said: LOL.
And today: 'If the UK wants a transition period beyond 31 December 2020, when the current seven-year EU budget ends, it will have to pay more. The EU is also leaving open the question of whether or not it will seek additional funds in return for the transition period. The money will be paid over time rather than in a lump sum. '
So, nothing has changed except May has acquiesced.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
What was Osborne saying about half competent Labour leaders?