Why is the WA "A Bad Deal"?

[VenusOfWillendorf]

I understand why nobody wants a No Deal (and also why many people want a No Brexit). But I keep seeing the WA referred to as 'a rubbish' deal' or 'a terrible' deal' etc. But I'm not sure what is so dire and awful about it?

As far as I can see - it's just a setting out of the landscape for an interim period (until the end of 2020) while the various 'actual deals' needed are put in place, and businesses adjust. A maintaining of the status quo. What is actually wrong with that? Or what is it that was expected from the WA?

I'd like to leave aside the issue of the Backstop - as any discussion on the WA just seems to be about the pros and cons of the backstop, so I think it's pretty well covered already. I do understand the arguments against it (although I don't agree with them).
But there must be more to slating the WA than the Backstop?

[shoofly]

I agree with you. It's a terrible deal from the point of view of someone who wants to stay (as I do) but it's the only possible deal which complies with Theresa Mays "red lines". If it has to be changed, the red lines have to change.
Yes, it's worse than the deal we currently have, but that's what was voted for.

[TalkinPeece]

Its worse than remain
but its better than No Deal
and its not actually a trade deal, just an agreement to get to the point of starting a trade deal

[FunnyTinge]

The issue is that the backstop mechanism, now extended to the whole UK at Theresa May's request, would almost certainly be invoked, so the UK would be stuck indefinitely in a custom's union and pseudo single market with the EU, without the ability to influence the EU decision making - i.e. the 'vassal state' that the ERG get upset about. It makes 'leaving' the EU a pointless exercise.

[TheMostBoringPersonEver]

I saw on a question time (can't remember which) that actually while people are focusing on the back stop there are other parts of the deal that are less than favourable. I wish I could remember bthe details!

[1tisILeClerc]

The 'WA' is supposed to be bad but it is the most practical way for the UK to leave.
Being stuck indefinitely in a customs union is only until proper negotiations and plans happen to reconcile the issue of the borders.

[Littlespaces]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/theresa-may-brexit-deal-solves-nothing-polly-toynbee

The Withdrawal Agreement isn't a trade deal, it is just the start of a long process of negotiation & conflict which would leave us worse off in the interim.

[KennDodd]

The WA isn't even a deal, I wish it wasnt painted as such. As far as I can see it's just a way to kick the can further down the road.

[1tisILeClerc]

You have to consider even a 'crash out catastrophic no deal' will take at least a year to be ratified with, in theory a lot of legislation and rules left hanging until they are actually re legislated. The EU have proposed a plan on THEIR terms to help the UK out for 9 months or a year, so planes will fly (limited) and ships will sail.
By signing up to the WA, the period is extended but initially nothing changes until individual aspects are addressed. The lack of decision is not good for industry but very quickly post 'Brexit' day, they will be able to see which way the wind is blowing and take appropriate action.

[bellinisurge]

It's either WA or "Irish border in the sea/NI is a special economic zone". Those are the only versions of Leave I can tolerate.
And sadly the fact that a Remain voter like me can tolerate them, seems to mean for some numpties that No Deal is better. No Deal supporters are fucking idiots and I don't care how insulted they are by that.

[VenusOfWillendorf]

So, essentially - it's considered a 'bad deal' (even though it's not a deal at all), because the EU are not saying - we wish you well with making more competitive deals with the rest of the world, and of course the UK can remain on the same trade terms with us as they were before. Oh, and forget the money you have already pledged, it's all water under the bridge?
I find it hard to imagine that was what the majority of the MPs who voted against the WA were expecting TM to come back with. Though certainly there were those who did and still do.

[1tisILeClerc]

The WA is a 'leave without cake' routemap, highlighting all the 'stuff' that needs to be unpicked. Citizens rights and the departure bill (estimate) are defined but most of the rest could be negotiated AFTER it is signed off. So that if a responsible government wanted to steer the suggested route towards harder or softer exit terms, they could be looked at.
Had the UK gov got it's act together nearly 3 years ago and actually negotiated with partners (the EU) rather than taking an adversarial stance, things could have been far better for everyone. Ratcheting up the anti EU feelings which prior to the referendum were pretty benign in most minds has turned it all sour.

[Littlespaces]

This has got more detail. You can click on different boxes depending what you are interested in.

news.sky.com/story/draft-brexit-agreement-in-detail-what-you-need-to-know-11554969

[Littlespaces]

By the way all those things in the link only last for the duration of the Agreement ending 2020, during which we negotiate with a bloc more powerful than ourselves.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Jsmith99]

The WA is a bad deal because it is significantly worse in every respect than the excellent deal we currently have as full members of the EU with opt-outs on Schengen and The Euro.

[VenusOfWillendorf]

Thanks Littlespaces, thats probably the most useful article on it that I've seen. Actual facts!

[GirlsBlouse17]

I think one of the things is that because we would be in a customs union, we would not be able to arrange trade deals with other countries

[GirlsBlouse17]

Also we wouldn't have any leverage in negotiating a trade deal with the EU during the transition period because Spain may veto any agreement until we give up Gibralter and France may veto it if we don't give up a decent share of our fishing waters

[jasjas1973]

The WA leaves us paying in, no say & no idea what we'll end up with at the end of it - because of this, the ERG will be pushing for a very loose relationship with EU, if they want one at all.

The Cons will win the next GE and if its a snap one, May will stay as PM, so neither her nor any of the main contenders for PM will be standing up to the far right of the party.

As Govt still seem hell bent on leaving, the population is still too thick to see what is happening and there was no mention of any deal in 2016, then give them what they want....a no-deal.

[lljkk]

I support the WA. I don't want to leave, but I can't imagine remain any more, either. Disorderly Brexit is outrageous prospect.

Backstop is very undesirable arrangement from EU's POV. Its almost only merit is that it's better than having Irish border go KaBoom. EU is very motivated to get hell out of Backstop.

Otherwise the WA has all the problems critics say it has, but so what...? That's Brexit. "The People" voted for this. So get on with it.

[Mistigri]

The WA is the best arrangement possible given the red lines that May foolishly drew.

The most bizarre thing about this whole ridiculous situation is that the one unlikely concession achieved by the U.K. negotiating team was ... the backstop.

[HateIsNotGood]

It's only a "bad deal" if you want things Now, Now, Now - Leave and want change Now or Stay and keep things as they are Now.

I rather see things mid to long term. If I was a Now, Give Me Now, I Want Now sort of Person I might think differently, but I'm not so I leave the Gimme Now, Leave It as It Is People to their own thoughts and views.

[jasjas1973]

The WA is the best arrangement possible given the red lines that May foolishly drew

She drew them because the ERG demanded she did... and it'll be no different over the next 2 years or prob considerably longer.

Supporting this WA is certainly taking a very short term view.

[Littlespaces]

Supporting WA over 'No Deal'.

Like taking Class B drugs instead of Class A.

[1tisILeClerc]

The biggest problem is what is going to happen the day after 'B' day (30 March. So far no one has suggested any plans about actually improving the UK at all. The government will descend even further into disarray (!) and either a GE or who knows what during which time the UK will be a rudderless ship and without the WA to maintain a sort of normality for the majority of the citizens of the UK who can say what will happen.
Although unpopular at least the WA gives a sense of normality to a good 70 - 80% of people. The massive disruption as companies declare their intentions will happen either way around, and even if there were to be a revoke as companies that have planned a move will not turn around and stay as they need stability as soon as possible.

[Littlespaces]

The key word is SENSE. There will be no normality.