I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
I suspect there is a lot of difference in reality on points 1 and 2. On 1, I don't see too much appetite at present for a two speed Europe within the EU and on 2. I would see the reference to a level playing field as running counter to the idea of having "freedom to deal with other countries as appropriate". The other thing that needs to be appreciated is that future trade relationships after we withdraw, rather than the withdrawal agreement itself, are not subject to qualified majority voting but can be vetoed by each individual EU member. The Brexiteer clowns Johnson, Fox and Davis, ably abetted by a Prime Minister who has put her own Party before the Country, have in effect wasted the past three years because they had no coherent or consistent vision of where we wanted to go after withdrawal. The Political Declaration is just aspirational tosh and its sole purpose was just to kick the can a further two years down the road, while in the meantime investment in the economy and ordinary peoples livelihoods suffer. We need to stop this madness and have a People's Vote.
Macron is actually very supportive of the 'concentric circle' approach.
I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
Ssssshhh
Incidentally, makes it even more frustrating that our politicians were unable to get this far when even a non-expert like myself suggested this approach two years back.
If you were in complete charge of the negotiations (or the acknowledged best negotiators in the world were in charge) from the day after the vote, do you think a better deal was possible?
If we had gone for what the Brexiters had been pushing for before the vote i.e. EEA membership (either via EFTA or a Switzerland style deal) and only triggering Article 50 once it was set in stone what the future relationship was going to be, then I imagine it would have been fairly straightforward to deal with.
Instead and for reasons still unknown to me Theresa May set down a bunch of red lines that were completely contrary to the Leave campaign promises and rushed into triggering Article 50 without even consulting internal advice, let alone opening up talks with the EU.
I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
I suspect there is a lot of difference in reality on points 1 and 2. On 1, I don't see too much appetite at present for a two speed Europe within the EU and on 2. I would see the reference to a level playing field as running counter to the idea of having "freedom to deal with other countries as appropriate". The other thing that needs to be appreciated is that future trade relationships after we withdraw, rather than the withdrawal agreement itself, are not subject to qualified majority voting but can be vetoed by each individual EU member. The Brexiteer clowns Johnson, Fox and Davis, ably abetted by a Prime Minister who has put her own Party before the Country, have in effect wasted the past three years because they had no coherent or consistent vision of where we wanted to go after withdrawal. The Political Declaration is just aspirational tosh and its sole purpose was just to kick the can a further two years down the road, while in the meantime investment in the economy and ordinary peoples livelihoods suffer. We need to stop this madness and have a People's Vote.
Macron is actually very supportive of the 'concentric circle' approach.
Yes but it has gone down like a lead balloon in Central Europe, the very zone where Macron assumes the outer concentric circle would be...
I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
I suspect there is a lot of difference in reality on points 1 and 2. On 1, I don't see too much appetite at present for a two speed Europe within the EU and on 2. I would see the reference to a level playing field as running counter to the idea of having "freedom to deal with other countries as appropriate". The other thing that needs to be appreciated is that future trade relationships after we withdraw, rather than the withdrawal agreement itself, are not subject to qualified majority voting but can be vetoed by each individual EU member. The Brexiteer clowns Johnson, Fox and Davis, ably abetted by a Prime Minister who has put her own Party before the Country, have in effect wasted the past three years because they had no coherent or consistent vision of where we wanted to go after withdrawal. The Political Declaration is just aspirational tosh and its sole purpose was just to kick the can a further two years down the road, while in the meantime investment in the economy and ordinary peoples livelihoods suffer. We need to stop this madness and have a People's Vote.
Macron is actually very supportive of the 'concentric circle' approach.
Yes but it has gone down like a lead balloon in Central Europe, the very zone where Macron assumes the outer concentric circle would be...
One interpretation of what could happen by Chuka Umanna in the Guardian.
“The Bush strategy could be employed by May, in terms of Brexit, like so: the latest we are hearing is that the Commons vote on the withdrawal agreement is due on Wednesday 12 December. If it fails to get through, although the markets here have priced in some political turbulence, there is likely to be an immediate economic shock with sterling and UK equity markets plummeting. Many businesses are simply unprepared for a no-deal Brexit and will therefore panic, cancelling orders and so on, as they worry it is about to become a reality. If she is still in place after such an event, the PM can go back to the EU Council, which is due to meet again on 13 and 14 December, to seek further concessions. Then she can put a revised withdrawal agreement to parliament in another vote before we rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 20 December, or just after we return in early January. Notwithstanding the fact there is no majority in the Commons for no deal, and there are ways to avoid this, May's gamble will be that MPs will similarly panic in the midst of crisis and vote through her agreement on the second attempt. Et voila - the Tarp strategy achieved. It would be the height of irresponsibility for a prime minister to knowingly precipitate an economic crisis like this in attempt to impose the executive's will on the legislature, but that is precisely what appears to be her plan. It's important to note that if she does this she will shred whatever is left of any claim the Conservatives may have to economic competence.”
I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
Ssssshhh
Incidentally, makes it even more frustrating that our politicians were unable to get this far when even a non-expert like myself suggested this approach two years back.
If you were in complete charge of the negotiations (or the acknowledged best negotiators in the world were in charge) from the day after the vote, do you think a better deal was possible?
Provided someone had kept Theresa May from tying their hands behind their backs, with her red lines, a better deal was always possible.
But, what has been agreed now is not the deal, but the deal to create the negotiating environment in which to achieve the deal.
You think the EU were ever going to budge on their red lines about access to the single market during the transition period? And do you think they are going to budge on those red lines for any future FTA? For me, frictionless access to the single market is the single most important issue for the UK going forward. The EU set their red lines on this from the beginning and they have not (quite rightly in my opinion) budged an inch. Despite the fanciful nonsense from the Brexiter morons about BMWs and Prosecco wine. I would really like some idea of what negotiating tactic could have persuaded the EU to give anything on this specific issue.
With a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the EU and the UK envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
One interpretation of what could happen by Chuka Umanna in the Guardian.
“The Bush strategy could be employed by May, in terms of Brexit, like so: the latest we are hearing is that the Commons vote on the withdrawal agreement is due on Wednesday 12 December. If it fails to get through, although the markets here have priced in some political turbulence, there is likely to be an immediate economic shock with sterling and UK equity markets plummeting. Many businesses are simply unprepared for a no-deal Brexit and will therefore panic, cancelling orders and so on, as they worry it is about to become a reality. If she is still in place after such an event, the PM can go back to the EU Council, which is due to meet again on 13 and 14 December, to seek further concessions. Then she can put a revised withdrawal agreement to parliament in another vote before we rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 20 December, or just after we return in early January. Notwithstanding the fact there is no majority in the Commons for no deal, and there are ways to avoid this, May's gamble will be that MPs will similarly panic in the midst of crisis and vote through her agreement on the second attempt. Et voila - the Tarp strategy achieved. It would be the height of irresponsibility for a prime minister to knowingly precipitate an economic crisis like this in attempt to impose the executive's will on the legislature, but that is precisely what appears to be her plan. It's important to note that if she does this she will shred whatever is left of any claim the Conservatives may have to economic competence.”
So there are differences, and I suspect you won't get the meltdown for a couple of reasons.
1 - Americans are retail investors in the stock market, they have a far closer relationship to the Dow Jones, then the average Brit, who kind of knows in 30 years time the FTSE might effect their pension. In the US, when the Dow drops, theres a real instant reaction for people.
2 - As a friend said in the city, it's priced in that it won't pass first time more of less, and especially when No10 are opening briefing about it, and the betting is it won't pass at all. What is also priced in is that they'll be an effort to stop No Deal, but that happens by default anyway.
One upside to the completion of Brexit in whatever form that takes will be the disappearance of Jacob Rees-Mogg back to the 18th century and backbench obscurity. Almost as good will be Farage having his platform kicked out from under him.
I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
Ssssshhh
Incidentally, makes it even more frustrating that our politicians were unable to get this far when even a non-expert like myself suggested this approach two years back.
If you were in complete charge of the negotiations (or the acknowledged best negotiators in the world were in charge) from the day after the vote, do you think a better deal was possible?
Provided someone had kept Theresa May from tying their hands behind their backs, with her red lines, a better deal was always possible.
But, what has been agreed now is not the deal, but the deal to create the negotiating environment in which to achieve the deal.
You think the EU were ever going to budge on their red lines about access to the single market during the transition period? And do you think they are going to budge on those red lines for any future FTA? For me, frictionless access to the single market is the single most important issue for the UK going forward. The EU set their red lines on this from the beginning and they have not (quite rightly in my opinion) budged an inch. Despite the fanciful nonsense from the Brexiter morons about BMWs and Prosecco wine. I would really like some idea of what negotiating tactic could have persuaded the EU to give anything on this specific issue.
With a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the EU and the UK envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
I know exactly what the EU mean by ‘.......combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition..’. And I know exactly what delusional Brexiteers think it might mean when they again overplay their hand. There will only be one winner when negotiating that part of the FTA.
Personally, if the best option we can achieve on this issue is complete regulatory and customs alignment (which I think is the best we can hope for) I would be happy. Even though it means we have no say in the creation of those regulations. It is the price we have to pay for allowing the Tory Brexit terrorists to rip us out of what has grown into and will continue to be the most important political union and trading block on the planet.
The only problem is that this is now only aspirational and a vision rather than fact.
We’re going to have to go through a few more hoops now before we can actually start working on the Politucal Declaration ... if ever.
Unfortunately, I think something similar to this would happen if there were an attempt to get a parliamentary majority to pass another 'Referendum Act' and agree the question(s) it would ask:
"Theresa May faces calls from several parties to be included if she decides to hold a TV debate on her Brexit deal.
Labour said Jeremy Corbyn would "relish" going head-to-head with the PM, in response to reports she wanted to challenge him to a TV showdown.
The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Greens have demanded to be involved to ensure a range of views is reflected.
Meanwhile, Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin said a Brexiteer must be on the panel"".
I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
Ssssshhh
Incidentally, makes it even more frustrating that our politicians were unable to get this far when even a non-expert like myself suggested this approach two years back.
If you were in complete charge of the negotiations (or the acknowledged best negotiators in the world were in charge) from the day after the vote, do you think a better deal was possible?
Provided someone had kept Theresa May from tying their hands behind their backs, with her red lines, a better deal was always possible.
But, what has been agreed now is not the deal, but the deal to create the negotiating environment in which to achieve the deal.
You think the EU were ever going to budge on their red lines about access to the single market during the transition period? And do you think they are going to budge on those red lines for any future FTA? For me, frictionless access to the single market is the single most important issue for the UK going forward. The EU set their red lines on this from the beginning and they have not (quite rightly in my opinion) budged an inch. Despite the fanciful nonsense from the Brexiter morons about BMWs and Prosecco wine. I would really like some idea of what negotiating tactic could have persuaded the EU to give anything on this specific issue.
With a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the EU and the UK envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
I know exactly what the EU mean by ‘.......combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition..’. And I know exactly what delusional Brexiteers think it might mean when they again overplay their hand. There will only be one winner when negotiating that part of the FTA.
Personally, if the best option we can achieve on this issue is complete regulatory and customs alignment (which I think is the best we can hope for) I would be happy. Even though it means we have no say in the creation of those regulations. It is the price we have to pay for allowing the Tory Brexit terrorists to rip us out of what has grown into and will continue to be the most important political union and trading block on the planet.
Incidentally, RCEP may have a word or two to say about being the most important trading block on the planet
One upside to the completion of Brexit in whatever form that takes will be the disappearance of Jacob Rees-Mogg back to the 18th century and backbench obscurity. Almost as good will be Farage having his platform kicked out from under him.
Not convinced we have seen the last of Farage in a political arena ... but we can only hope.
One upside to the completion of Brexit in whatever form that takes will be the disappearance of Jacob Rees-Mogg back to the 18th century and backbench obscurity. Almost as good will be Farage having his platform kicked out from under him.
Not convinced we have seen the last of Farage in a political arena ... but we can only hope.
Agree he’ll linger around like a bad fart but he’s fundamentally a one trick pony. Have you heard his views on anything other than Brexit. No more insightful than either yours or mine. His EU gravy train is pulling out of the station and once he realises he has nothing to spout about on LBC he’ll drift off into something else. UKIP are now just a bad joke and will be history within eighteen months if not before. He’ll never get elected into the HoC on a Tory ticket. Basically he’s done.
The current ‘deal’ (lol) will not get through Parliament. No deal will never be accepted.
Looking like the 27 November will be a very important date. That is when the European Court of Justice adjudicates on whether the invocation of Article 50 can be revoked.
Apparently, advance consensus amongst legal experts is that the ECJ will say yes.
If so, and it were invoked, that would allow time for a real negotiation based on this week’s 26 page document and even, potentially, a fresh referendum.
Unless the revocation of Article 50 also requires EU member state agreement. Then things may get even more complex.
Tomorrow’s the day ... will be interesting to say the least. May has tried to stop this but failed.
I think I might actually be succumbing to May’s “you should approve this deal because the alternative is no deal” rhetoric
Don't. The Norwegian option is better than this crock of shit.
I agree, but that’s not actually on the table.
If parliamentary vote down Mays deal this will be on the table as it's better than no deal. Imo it should have been on the table from day one.
Many agree and it's actually the preference for the Shadow Brexit Secretary. Labour policy on Brexit only requires a subtle shift to fully embrace but it isn't there and May was never there for two simple reasons: 1) If the UK was to opt for Norway + CU then that's identical to current market access so why leave and give up EU representation and influence 2) Supporting one Brexit option loses support from other parts of the spectrum even if they're rubbish solutions
The paradox is that BINO is the best Leave option (unless you're a unicorn lover) but it's seriously sub-optimal compared to remain since the UK would have no representation nor ability to lobby. And the ERG crowd might shout "vassal state", but before we are carried away by their rhetoric this piece in the economist spells out the effects of a "no deal" outcome.
It's May who went for an all out Hard Brexit back in 2016 so as to win support from UKIP voters for that election landslide she was planning. That happened! And now she is explaining the "logic" behind the WA: It's all about staying in a form of CU but leaving the SM because the people want an end to freedom of movement. Possibly the worst possible compromise?
Norway (+CU) is basically a proxy for Remain which is why many are totally relaxed if that's the outcome - there's certainly a majority in the country for the CU but the SM vs freedom of movement debate is somewhat more nuanced. And my view is that Labour have not spoken up about this because it is a rerun of 2016 and would thus give power to the ERG and libertarians. Far better to allow the Brexit factions to fight it out amongst themselves and then come to the rescue either before or just after March 29th. And by rescue we mean either Norway or revoke Article 50.
And that is the choice which should go to the people. Not crash out with no deal like a child. But Remain vs WA vs Norway + CU because all three options involve a CU membership which is part of the solution for the Irish border, for the Kent ports and for manufacturing. In other words a range of solutions which put the nation first rather than the bizarre and contradictory interests of libertarians, nationalists, media moguls and the odd Russian!
This situation will resolve itself over the next few years and it isn't even in the top five challenges facing the nation! The WA is one way to move to the next step in the journey but it's shockingly poor and only has 25% support in the polls. Or one third of those who have expressed a view. May has chosen to waste 18 months getting to this point rather than making the more inteligent and honest choice to line up ALL options in parallel and then put that to a vote in the Commons and/or back to the people.
Now that she has made her move it's with Corbyn, Starmer, McDonnell and the other opposition Party leaders plus the DUP and Tory remainers to create an alternative path which leads to a better outcome. One that might command the support of 55-60% of the UK polpulation and not 25%. How we get there, I don't know and many do not care. But we need to arrive at March 29th 2019 in one piece.
The current ‘deal’ (lol) will not get through Parliament. No deal will never be accepted.
Looking like the 27 November will be a very important date. That is when the European Court of Justice adjudicates on whether the invocation of Article 50 can be revoked.
Apparently, advance consensus amongst legal experts is that the ECJ will say yes.
If so, and it were invoked, that would allow time for a real negotiation based on this week’s 26 page document and even, potentially, a fresh referendum.
Unless the revocation of Article 50 also requires EU member state agreement. Then things may get even more complex.
Tomorrow’s the day ... will be interesting to say the least. May has tried to stop this but failed.
Mmm, here’s a viewpoint I hadn’t considered:
“While a ruling that the UK government can revoke Article 50 might encourage a second referendum, it would also empower Eurosceptics such as Viktor Orban to cause merry hell by issuing their own Article 50 notices they intend to withdraw at the last minute (perhaps as a way of pressuring the Council and Commission over other issues). This is why I suspect the ECJ will rule Article 50 can’t be revoked: it remains a political court and it is unlikely to set a precedent that cause massive headaches for the EU in the long run.”
Comments
Instead and for reasons still unknown to me Theresa May set down a bunch of red lines that were completely contrary to the Leave campaign promises and rushed into triggering Article 50 without even consulting internal advice, let alone opening up talks with the EU.
Sums it up
It will taste different!
“The Bush strategy could be employed by May, in terms of Brexit, like so: the latest we are hearing is that the Commons vote on the withdrawal agreement is due on Wednesday 12 December. If it fails to get through, although the markets here have priced in some political turbulence, there is likely to be an immediate economic shock with sterling and UK equity markets plummeting.
Many businesses are simply unprepared for a no-deal Brexit and will therefore panic, cancelling orders and so on, as they worry it is about to become a reality. If she is still in place after such an event, the PM can go back to the EU Council, which is due to meet again on 13 and 14 December, to seek further concessions. Then she can put a revised withdrawal agreement to parliament in another vote before we rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 20 December, or just after we return in early January.
Notwithstanding the fact there is no majority in the Commons for no deal, and there are ways to avoid this, May's gamble will be that MPs will similarly panic in the midst of crisis and vote through her agreement on the second attempt. Et voila - the Tarp strategy achieved.
It would be the height of irresponsibility for a prime minister to knowingly precipitate an economic crisis like this in attempt to impose the executive's will on the legislature, but that is precisely what appears to be her plan. It's important to note that if she does this she will shred whatever is left of any claim the Conservatives may have to economic competence.”
1 - Americans are retail investors in the stock market, they have a far closer relationship to the Dow Jones, then the average Brit, who kind of knows in 30 years time the FTSE might effect their pension. In the US, when the Dow drops, theres a real instant reaction for people.
2 - As a friend said in the city, it's priced in that it won't pass first time more of less, and especially when No10 are opening briefing about it, and the betting is it won't pass at all. What is also priced in is that they'll be an effort to stop No Deal, but that happens by default anyway.
The Norwegian option is better than this crock of shit.
We’re going to have to go through a few more hoops now before we can actually start working on the Politucal Declaration ... if ever.
May has screwed this up so much.
Unfortunately, I think something similar to this would happen if there were an attempt to get a parliamentary majority to pass another 'Referendum Act' and agree the question(s) it would ask:
"Theresa May faces calls from several parties to be included if she decides to hold a TV debate on her Brexit deal.
Labour said Jeremy Corbyn would "relish" going head-to-head with the PM, in response to reports she wanted to challenge him to a TV showdown.
The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Greens have demanded to be involved to ensure a range of views is reflected.
Meanwhile, Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin said a Brexiteer must be on the panel"".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46349627
They are a different team!
Imo it should have been on the table from day one.
1) If the UK was to opt for Norway + CU then that's identical to current market access so why leave and give up EU representation and influence
2) Supporting one Brexit option loses support from other parts of the spectrum even if they're rubbish solutions
The paradox is that BINO is the best Leave option (unless you're a unicorn lover) but it's seriously sub-optimal compared to remain since the UK would have no representation nor ability to lobby. And the ERG crowd might shout "vassal state", but before we are carried away by their rhetoric this piece in the economist spells out the effects of a "no deal" outcome.
It's May who went for an all out Hard Brexit back in 2016 so as to win support from UKIP voters for that election landslide she was planning. That happened! And now she is explaining the "logic" behind the WA: It's all about staying in a form of CU but leaving the SM because the people want an end to freedom of movement. Possibly the worst possible compromise?
Norway (+CU) is basically a proxy for Remain which is why many are totally relaxed if that's the outcome - there's certainly a majority in the country for the CU but the SM vs freedom of movement debate is somewhat more nuanced. And my view is that Labour have not spoken up about this because it is a rerun of 2016 and would thus give power to the ERG and libertarians. Far better to allow the Brexit factions to fight it out amongst themselves and then come to the rescue either before or just after March 29th. And by rescue we mean either Norway or revoke Article 50.
And that is the choice which should go to the people. Not crash out with no deal like a child. But Remain vs WA vs Norway + CU because all three options involve a CU membership which is part of the solution for the Irish border, for the Kent ports and for manufacturing. In other words a range of solutions which put the nation first rather than the bizarre and contradictory interests of libertarians, nationalists, media moguls and the odd Russian!
This situation will resolve itself over the next few years and it isn't even in the top five challenges facing the nation! The WA is one way to move to the next step in the journey but it's shockingly poor and only has 25% support in the polls. Or one third of those who have expressed a view. May has chosen to waste 18 months getting to this point rather than making the more inteligent and honest choice to line up ALL options in parallel and then put that to a vote in the Commons and/or back to the people.
Now that she has made her move it's with Corbyn, Starmer, McDonnell and the other opposition Party leaders plus the DUP and Tory remainers to create an alternative path which leads to a better outcome. One that might command the support of 55-60% of the UK polpulation and not 25%. How we get there, I don't know and many do not care. But we need to arrive at March 29th 2019 in one piece.
“While a ruling that the UK government can revoke Article 50 might encourage a second referendum, it would also empower Eurosceptics such as Viktor Orban to cause merry hell by issuing their own Article 50 notices they intend to withdraw at the last minute (perhaps as a way of pressuring the Council and Commission over other issues). This is why I suspect the ECJ will rule Article 50 can’t be revoked: it remains a political court and it is unlikely to set a precedent that cause massive headaches for the EU in the long run.”