THE TOPIC

 

TIME OUT: – WE NEED A NEW CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UK electorate and Government

ALSO

RENEGOTIAION OF the Withdrawal Agreement

 

I fail to understand that the message is not getting across to MPs even when they talk to their Constituency Associations, Ministers who must read the media and civil servants that the majority of the electorate are going to tell the Conservative Party (and the Labour Party too) that they have been let down by dithering, inability to compose a detailed BREXIT strategy, keep to it and enter the negotiations with the EU on at least an equal footing.

No the government seem to have allowed the EU the opportunity to set the agenda, draw up the strategy and tell the UK what we can and must do.

Yet the European Union is not a state yet it seems to act as a state.

A Prime Minister that thinks that having lost the vote in the HoC for the Withdrawal Agreement (composed by the EU) can bring back the same Agreement again and again (even perhaps for a 4th time) and try and save face even though this document is not a good deal that a sovereign state can agree.

A HoC that takes NO DEAL off the table – what negotiator would do that. And a HoC where the  majority of MPs have no experience of how the EU functions, have never been to the Council of Ministers nor attended the European Parliament.

Just look at the end game under this Withdrawal Agreement. The UK has to comply with all EU legislation during the implantation period, comply with UNION LAW and thereafter if no future relationship with the EU is agreed. On top of that pay £39bn to the EU as a divorce payment.

Then to rub salt into the face of the UK we still cannot leave until the EU gives its permission in a joint decision.

How can we support such a binding Treaty.

Mrs May needs to RESIGN NOW

Don’t those who want to Remain in the Union realise that if having given the electorate a vote in a Referendum we then have a government that tries to avoid doing what was decided – that means that MORE POWER IS GIVEN TO THE EU

Just the opposite to what we wanted. 

Bring back control to a sovereign nation.

In one respect I hope we do have European Parliament Elections and the Political Party system is shocked by the result. Not just a result that the Leaders will try to mitigate but a total catastrophe. They might then realise that the UK electorate meant what they voted for. They are not to be messed with

No Customs Union but able to have control of our own trade policy

No Internal Market, well we can’t be in something that is Internal

No compliance with the rulings of the ECJ

No over-site by the EU on our tax and spending policies

Yes a sovereign state where the electorate can elect MPs and a government that will undertake policies in line with what they have been elected to do. Both Conservative and Labour said they would honour the result of the Referendum by what was said in their Manifesto

MPs should be reminded that they hold their position on lease at the behest of their electorate.

The House of Lords – well what can I say that supports their continued position. All 850 of them

The Withdrawal Agreement needs to be renegotiated-made simpler and not so explicit

 

This is an interesting article by Sammy Wilson DUP MP  – link below – and spells out some of the objections to the Withdrawal Agreement

Not mentioned is Article 4 which ties the UK into fully accepting Union Law (under ECJ rulings) during the implementation period and thereafter if no agreement is reached on the future relationship between the UK and the EU

In my view the government should be quite clear with the EU. The WA needs to be renegotiated, made simpler and act as a process for the two sides to negotiate the future relationship (the conclusions of the Political Declaration)

If there was a process like that it might be just possible for a FTA to be established between the UK and the EU for implementation by 31 October 2019

It will be clear during the weeks leading up to that date whether there is any chance that the EU will agree to such an arrangement and then “ jointly” with the UK give their permission for us to LEAVE the EU

If that appears not to be the situation, and we will be able to make that judgement quite early on, we would simply LEAVE the EU

There should be a political resolve that this new approach would have to stand firm

https://brexitcentral.com/the-backstop-remains-the-reason-for-the-parliamentary-brexit-impasse-and-must-be-addressed/

EU DOES NOT WANT A NO DEAL BREXIT

Int/v on BBC NEWS  with German Chancellor in waiting Annegret Kramer-Karrenbauer who indicated there is a serious concern in the EU about UK  Leaving with No Deal

Said if we all sat down for 5 days to see if alternative arrangement could be negotiated for BACKSTOP she couldn’t see any one in EU saying no

An interesting opinion which the UK government should take up.

The EU under a No Deal scenario will have more problems than the UK to cope with and even at this late stage a comment like this from a senior German politician demonstrates that the Withdrawal Agreement can still be examined again

HoC has no idea how to negotiate

> NEVER take off the table a strong position

> NEVER tell your opponent what you are thinking

>NEVER throw away a good negotiating position

>NEVER give away something nobody has asked for

>NEVER capitulate

FUTURE MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS 

The result of the indicative votes demonstrated that the HoC does not have an answer to the current BREXIT exit. No one solution was given a majority.

The Withdrawal Agreement equally has failed. Everybody refers to it as the government’s document but it was the EU that drew this up and has been emphatic that there is no possibility to reopen negotiations. The EU has to change its position 

The EU has produced an Agreement that would bind the UK into accepting EU laws, under Union Law, adjudicated by the ECJ for many years to come.

We hear that the EU does not want to have a No Deal Brexit. 

My experience of dealing with the EU Commission over the last 30 years is that they will blink if forced to do. The member states will exert their pragmatism realising that they have lost annually  €15bn from their budget

The 17.4m who voted to LEAVE have been let down by those in government who appear to have capitulated on most issues in the negotiations with the EU. Clearly there was no over sight exerted by the political arm of government.

They have also been let down by those who demanded the “NO DEAL” option be taken off the table. Negotiations don’t finish until there is a deal or end when no deal is the only conclusion

The referendum vote was to leave. The negotiations by government and these indicative votes demonstrate that 70% of members in the HoC are Remain supporters

The government now need to tell the EU that the option that had the majority support was the Brady amendment for alternative measures which now needs to be introduced into the Withdrawal Agreement.

There could be an agreed solution but the EU would have to break away from the prescriptive script set out in the Withdrawal Agreement adopt a pragmatic way ahead found. I will be very surprised if the EU, as a whole, don’t now realise that their objective in this BREXIT process needs amending 

The UK is the 2nd largest EU economy, the 5th largest world economy, the 2nd largest contributor to NATO (defending the security of Europe). A permanent member of the UN Security Council

How can anybody try and say that the UK has to seek the permission of the EU in order to exit. 

That a Decision of the Council of Ministers overrides UK law. 

We will not be pushed about and to add insult we are expected to handover £39bn.

SOLUTION

Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement needs to be deleted and all references to that Article taken out of the Withdrawal Agreement 

The Irish / Northern Ireland backstop needs to be deleted and the Articles and Clauses referring to it reworded or deleted. 

A declaration be undertaken between the UK (involving NI) the Irish Republic (involving the EU) ratifying the Good Friday Agreement to maintain no hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland

A specific timeframe of 12 months should be inserted in the Agreement to conclude the future relationship between the UK and the EU

No funds that are negotiated during this 12 month period should be handed over until the future arrangements are agreed and implemented 

The Withdrawal Agreement needs to be scrutinised in detail to make sure that it’s text complies with the wishes of the UK. That may need additional amendments in the 585 page document. The document should be reduced in size. 

A pending document could ensure this

The statement that the Withdrawal Agreement sets the scene for discussions and negotiations on the future relationship between a sovereign UK and the EU must be deleted from the Agreement in order that the future can honour the terms of the UK referendum and the objectives of the EU

The renegotiated conclusion should be completed by 22 May 2019. Without such a mutually agreed conclusion the UK will exit the EU on WTO terms yet maintaining a meaningful dialogue to have a FTA between the UK / EU

ESSENTIAL that the Withdrawal Agreement follows the sentiment of mutual cooperation and trust.

If the EU are intransigent we LEAVE on 12 April 2019 with NO AGREEMENT on WTO terms

RENEGOTIATE THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT

<< STAND FIRM >> 

It is reported that the EU is deeply concerned that the UK will Exit the EU on 12 April 2019 with no deal following the HoC rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement. It appears they don’t want that. Well of course they wouldn’t as they drew up the Agreement. They therefore need to consider whether by sticking to the text of their Withdrawal Agreement that “No Deal” will emerge.

I realise that the EU has said that the WA is not open to any further negotiation but anybody who has been involved in negotiating a deal knows that if a solution can be found that meets their basic strategy the text can be changed. Even right at the last minute. You know the saying would you cut your nose off to spite your face

The WA, as it stands, in no way represents the decision that 17.4m voters took in the 2016 Referendum to Leave the EU. It could however be made to work if further negotiations took place. The UK has some leverage otherwise it is NO DEAL

All the motions put forward last Wednesday in the HoC were rejected.

Why wasn’t the HoC indicative motion E debated and voted on last week. This sought MP’s to confirm that the 2016 Referendum result would be honoured. Both Conservative and Labour MP’s were elected on Party Manifesto that stated they would honour the result of that Referendum. They cannot now change their opinion back to support their individual Remain vote in the Referendum. We moved on to honouring the Referendum. If they don’t what Trust can we have in their principles

ARTICLE 4 OF THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT

Article 4 of the WA sets out a legally binding arrangement that the UK will come under Union Law during the implementation period and to continue to be so if there is no agreement between the UK and the EU on the future relationship. This is totally unacceptable for the UK, a sovereign state, to be trapped into this arrangement until the UK / EU jointly agree that the UK can Leave the EU. 

In effect the EU 27 member states have to be unanimous in giving their permission for the UK to leave the EU

The UK is currently the second largest economy in the EU and the fifth largest world economy. Our security and defence capability is essential to the defence of the continent of Europe and we are the second largest contributor to NATO

We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

Are we actually accepting that the EU has to give us permission to leave the EU – WHAT – surely we cannot agree to that.

The first opinion of the Attorney General remains intact as it should be noted, on past record, that EU negotiations with third countries to establish FTA’s and other arrangements, takes many years and there is uncertainty they can agree. 

The UK will be trapped and unable to exit the EU and negotiate FTA”s with other Third countries. We will have to continue to comply with all EU laws under Union Law and accept ECJ rulings.

That is exactly what the 17.4m voters did not want. They wanted the UK to take control and be a SOVEREIGN nation

This simple fact will potentially hamper our external economy. We will not be able to influence any EU policies

THE BACKSTOP

Furthermore the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol is not needed to safeguard the conditions of the Good Friday Agreement. We know that Ireland / Northern Ireland and the UK have declared that regardless of any outcome in these BREXIT negotiations they do not want to have a hard border.

The EU have not officially declared that to maintain the integrity of their Internal (Single) Market and their Customs Union they will insist that a hard border exists. This border issue has been used for political reasons by the EU, the Irish government and some UK politicians who support the REMAIN concept.

I am convinced that the government and public of the Republic of Ireland and in Norther Ireland would be horrified if the EU instructed them to have a hard border

We are told by the EU that the ball is in the UK’s court

BUT IS IT

The vast majority of people that I speak to want to leave the EU and have hardened in that direction when they were told last week that a decision of the European Council takes precedence over UK domestic law. Laws that the HoC agree have no force of law if overturned by EU Law. People voted LEAVE to have control over our law making as an independent sovereign state

Those MP’s who took “NO DEAL” off the table fell into the EU trap of capitulation. [Very bad negotiating tactic]

Nobody is explaining the negative effects of this Withdrawal Agreement and how it will affect us all.

<> <> NEGOTIATING SOLUTION <> <><>

Firstly the indicative motions taken last week were a complete waste of time and if repeated on Monday will have the same effect. None of the Motions were passed – all failed.

The UK government should tell the EU that the Withdrawal Agreement is not acceptable to the HoC nor the general public. The text should be amended if a DEAL is to be agreed

The UK government should tell the EU that the text of Article 4 and its general meaning in the text of the Withdrawal Agreement should be deleted. 

The UK is a SOVEREIGN STATE.

The so called NI / Ireland “backstop” text in the WA should be deleted as should the Protocol. It is said this will never be implemented in which case why is it there it is not required other than to force the UK to comply with whatever EU law that is dreamed up.

A new clause should be added that explicitly allows the UK to unilaterally exit the EU after a specific time if the arrangements for the future relationship between the UK and the EU cannot be agreed

Otherwise the UK should Leave the EU on WTO terms in line with the conditions that the UK currently trades with other Third countries 

By Leaving the EU it will then be possible to enter into negotiations with the EU to establish the future relationship between the UK and the EU – we are told by the EU those negotiations cannot commence until after the UK has left the EU. 

If the EU wants a Deal it needs to be on mutual terms.

This WA is not on mutual terms.

We will Leave on 12 April 2019 at 11pm

We could agree to enter into an informal agreement with the EU that for one year the UK will continue the status quo in respect of laws, standards for goods / services and mutual understanding on tariffs. The UK will have left the EU and after one year if there is no negotiated settlement for a future relationship the UK will automatically unilaterally cease to comply with those undertakings and fully exit the arrangement with the EU. If during the year it is obvious that the EU are deliberately delaying this process the UK can unilaterally exit

Negotiations would involve arrangements for the amicable future working relationship with the EU. This relationship could exercise the negotiators to defend their own objectives but at the same time look beyond to a relationship that includes a non tariff mutual recognition pact to manage a FTA

The government has some leverage on this Withdrawal Agreement since the HoC has rejected it and since the EU would like a deal and they cannot ignore – what they keep asking – for the UK to tell them what we want.

The EU also wants our money but whatever amount is finally agreed it should only be paid over once the final future relationship has been agreed and implemented

Let’s tell them what we want

WHAT NOW WITH BREXIT

Looking to the future relationship between the UK/ EU and bearing in mind all these past failures I hope that lessons have been learnt. The Remainers in Parliament are 70% of MPs and they will continue to try and frustrate exiting the EU

By not discussing the indicative Motion E on Wednesday that asked the HoC to confirm the vote by 17.4m in the 2016 Referendum to LEAVE the EU  they more or less said they will ignore that vote (I accept that it is the Speaker who decides what amendments are debated BUT MPs could have changed that in these unusual circumstances

The government therefore needs a detailed strategic plan setting out what the objective must be to have a relationship with the EU that will benefit. That plan must be agreed and implemented  by all

In my view the EU already know what they want and unless they achieve that the negotiations will fester on for years

The Attorney General is right that the conditions set out in his first opinion on the Withdrawal Agreement (that the UK will be trapped).

If the government is to mitigate that position some sharp thinking will be needed.  

Knowing how the Commission works, and understanding that the Withdrawal Agreement is under Union Law that will be adjudicated not by UK domestic law by our Judges but by the ECJ under strict Union Law, the future relationship must be concluded within the implementation period.

Note there is no deadline for Union Law to cease and in the WA clause that before the UK can leave there has to be a joint decision – actually that the EU has to give its permission and that will only be given once the EU has extracted exactly what they want

That clause is the failure of the government’s position

The ANSWER is the reject the Withdrawal Agreement and LEAVE the EU on WTO terms (that is not crashing out as the UK’s trading arrangements with other parts of the world are conducted in this way)

INDICATIVE VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Why wasn’t the indicative vote E discussed or voted on – see below for the text

Surely this would have confirmed what the 17.4m voters who voted to Leave wanted from the Referendum.

In effect the HoC were saying we can ignore the result of the 2016 Referendum

No mention in the media

Have I missed something

The public would have then been able to see how their MPs voted on this option

INDICATIVE VOTE:-

E) Respect the referendum result

That this House recalls that this sovereign Parliament gave the choice about whether the UK should remain in, or leave, the European Union to the British people in the 2016 referendum, and that in the 2017 election 85 per cent of votes were cast for political parties which committed to abiding by that decision in their manifestos, and therefore reaffirms its commitment to honour the result of the referendum that the UK should leave the European Union.

HoC Order Paper

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmagenda/ob190327.htm#_idTextAnchor006

THE UK WILL NOT BE A SOVEREIGN STATE UNDER THIS EU WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT 

If MP’s adopt this Withdrawal Agreement it will mean that during the implementation period ALL EU legislation will continue to apply. Not only that but any new or amended legislation will have to be implemented in the UK without any input or examination from UK representatives in the Brussels / Strasbourg process.

If there is no agreement for the future relationship between the UK / EU the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement will continue

We will not be able to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with Third countries and our ability to control immigration, our own taxes, defence and security policy. The UK will have a diminished role to play on the world stage as we will not be able to conclude any policy with external bodies or third countries without EU approval

Already EU legislation gets hardly any scrutiny by the HoC and HoL other than through their Select Committees. An EU Regulation cannot be amended in any way. A Directive has some flexibility but its main principle must the complied with otherwise the Court of Justice of the European Union will adjudicate it’s implementation

Any scrutiny of EU legislation is conducted in the Brussels and Strasbourg process by 751 elected MEPs, (sitting on a permanent basis), Council of Ministers civil servants in working groups and other consultative Institutions like the 350 appointed members of the European Economic and Social Committee (sitting on a permanent basis) and the 350 placed members of the European Committee of the Regions (meeting in 5-6 sessions each year

Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement there will be no participation from the UK in the Brussels / Strasbourg process but we will be tied in to implementing all legislation and Decisions of the EU even if we do not want to. Sovereignty State status gone

Future relationship between the UK / EU

To establish the future relationship between the UK / EU could take years, the EU does not have a good record of negotiating new Free Trade Agreements quickly. On top of that under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement to actually exit the EU requires the UNANIMOUS agreement (permission) of all the member states of the EU. 

From what I read of the Attorney Generals opinion although the risk of being trapped in the EU has slightly reduced the overall concept is unchanged. Whilst negotiations continue possibly for years, based on precedent, the EU would claim they are not being unreasonable PLUS those wanting to Remain in the EU would continue to agitate to press that policy

The 5th largest world economy would require the unanimous permission of the EU 27 member states to LEAVE 

BREXIT – HoC Speakers Statement on a third meaningful vote

This appears to be logical. Many people cannot understand how the PM can keep bringing the same motion back to the HoC when it was first rejected with a majority of 230 and then only last week by 149

The MP’s in the HoC are beginning to not understand the meaning of democracy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074

Government asked by Justine Greening MP about procedure for Article 50 extension – News from Parliament – UK Parliament

The Link below takes you to the HoC page where this urgent question will be taken about 5.30pm on Tuesday 19 March

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/march/government-asked-about-article-50-period-extension-procedure/