Westminstenders: Break it or make it.

[RedToothBrush]

We have a deal on the table. In reality it does not answer the question the result of the referendum posed: what type of deal do we want? The progress we have actually made in 2 years is to say, 'we want to leave' but nothing more. Or as its been termed: 'Blind Brexit' in which we exit but without knowing what comes next.

Even this is controversial. There are apparently some 88 Conservative back bench MPs (or half the Conservative back bench MPs) who are intending to vote against approving the deal. Some are remainers and some are hard leavers. Each side believing there is still everything to play for; whether that be no deal or no brexit. We are still as divided as ever.

The stumbling block, as ever, is largely the NI backstop. With many still arguing that it should be time limited. This fails to understand that the backstop is the GFA to all intents and purposes. And this is why Ireland and the EU will never agree to have a time limited backstop.

And once again we have this fundamental misunderstanding that the withdrawal agreement is anything more than merely the mechanism to leave, not the final deal, which is hampering all discussion of the subject.

There is talk that May will try to push the deal through and if she fails she will try for a second time. This might work, if this wasn't being anticipated. The trouble is the element of surprise is gone. This has now been denied by a No10 spokesperson. And has the possibility of a second referendum. Though the door on that, seems to be more open than less, with May's official declaration of a Blind Brexit. The whole effectiveness of a TARP style situation and a second vote on the deal in the HoC is the guilotine effect, where MPs look over the cliff and go 'shiiiiiitttt'. If the hope is alive for another way out for either the ERG or Remainers, then the plan is dead anyway. The a50 ECJ case is also still on; the latest government appeal to kill it was blocked.

Not only this, but there is the first tangable rumblings of discontent within the EU towards the deal. Spain has talked about voting the deal down. Whether this is anymore than talk, remains to be seen. Spain can not veto the deal at this stage anyway - but it might be able to cause trouble further down the line and thats the danger.

Meanwhile Labour are still promising unicorns and a total renegotition of the deal. This still focuses on the backstop.

Sunday's EU summit does still seem to be on though, despite Merkel suggesting that she wouldn't turn up.

And remember, as it stands, on 29th March we will leave the EU without a deal. The power to stop this lies with the Government and EU as far as we know at present, pending the outcome of the ECJ case.

May still has everything to do to make a deal happen and there are so many forces and people working to break it. We have still not made any real progress to Brexit, apart from get closer to it, through the mere ticking of the clock.

Bellinisurge
I knew that, which was why I said it.

I think you would have to really want to live in Norway.
It is lovely and I think I would be happy there but I can see it would not be for everyone. Unless you were in one of the big cities you can be a long way from anywhere.

From the government website, settling in Norway. See section on residency:

www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-norway

Yep, they apply the rules.
You have to prove you qualify and get registered before you sleepwalk twenty years later into a bureaucratic hell having to prove retrospectively you have the right to be there.

I thought Norway would mean a hard border in Ireland .

So the rest of the EU are patsies.

Norway seems to work OK. We have bad weather here too.

But they are a wealthy country from their oil reserves. And have worked it all out. Clever.

The UK's 'come over here, no questions asked' approach has really not done EU citizens any favours.

Uh Oh,

Norway ++ or minus a few +s would mean actually having to monitor things. OK.

That worked fine up to now so.

What ?
Orderly exit, doesn't cross EU red lines
That was always going to be required for any deal the EU signed

OK.

What is the difference between staying in EU and going for either the WA or Norway + ?

I really would like to know this.

I'm actually thinking that in that framing, the closest parallel might actually be Charles I.

Does that mean we get to decapitate May, her husband, Grease Smug, Johnson and all the other duplicitous arseholes who are trying to sell what's left of our infrastructure/NHS to the US? If so, count me the fuck in.

What is the difference between staying in EU and going for either the WA or Norway + ?

@bofsy1
That's not a question that can be answered in a few lines.

But the WA isn't a "deal" and it is very vague about how a future deal may look, although it seems to look more like Canada than Norway. The big difference with the WA, compared to remain or Norway, is (a) having a say over EU rules and (b) citizens' rights, which are shredded by the WA.

Norway + (by which I assume you means a Norway type deal with an added customs arrangement at least in NI) would involve continued membership of the EEA and hence the single market. EEA members have some indirect influence over EU rules. This would also safeguard citizens' rights.

As a Briton in the EU whose rights have been trampled all over, I'd settle for Norway + (if remaining proves impossible).

bofsy There is NO deal that delivers all the UK wants, without crossing its red lines.
That's the problem with Brexit - and of course, different groups of Leavers have different red lines and aspirations.

The UK as a whole has to agree / accept what it is prepared to give up

• this should have been done properly, 2 years ago !

imo, Norway++ (SM + Customs deal + agriculture / farming + passporting) is the best compromise

Frictionless Trade / NI
The NI border and UK trade - including for JIT - with the EU & EFTA would be kept frictionless by the +++ deals on Customs & agriculture / farming.
"Norway" alone would not be enough.

As this would apply to the whole UK, the NI backstop would remain "inert", only activated if ever the Uk left EFTA too.

FOM
it has to include FOM, because that is one of the 4 pillars of the SM
The UK is such a magnet for immigrants mainly because of the English language, no ID cards, non-contributory benefits
No other country in the EU has this combination of attractions - most have none of them

Tiny Lichtenstein used EEA /EFTA Article 112 to stop emigration - this can be done for serious economic / social / national security reasons
RNorth claims it could be used unilaterally by the UK, but this might not be possible without suffering some sanctions.

Contributions & Votes
EFTA contributions are not to the EU budget, but as aid to Eastern Europe.
I gather they are proportionally a bit lower than EU contributions, as EFTA doesn't use all the EU facilities.
EFTA countries like Norway choose themselves which projects & areas their money should be spent on in the EE

Only EU members can formally vote, but EFTA members have informal input into rules or initiatives that would affect them and also on how large their aid contributions should be

Customs problems? I don't think so, and nor does the head of UK customs Jon Thompson.

There is a big difference between saying no infrastructure will be built and saying that here will be no problem.

It's a bit like saying that there will be no problem importing food in the event of no deal because the UK will just stop checking food.

And Spain cannot block the EU's acceptance of their own deal because voting will be on QMV, where the support of only 20 of the 27 remaining members will be enough, and you can guarantee the Germans will have no trouble strong-arming enough little or poor countries into line.

It is correct that they have limited power now. They can however use their power of veto in the future. This is not the final deal.

May has betrayed all of us, lying through her teeth ever since the referendum campaign, deceiving the cabinet and the media

Whether or not you like the deal, she hasn't come up with it for her own benefit.

The WA stops FOM after the end of transition

It keeps the right of residence, work etc in one country for existing E27 & UK expats - including all who register up to the end date of transtion -
but this right can be lost if the expat is absent for 5 years at a stretch

It also removes the right to work or reside in EU countries other than the main residence.

OK I know that is a bit facetious, but still. Farage will be funded for life!

Apparently he just goes there once a month to make a speech for YouTube.

May has betrayed all of us, lying through her teeth ever since the referendum campaign, deceiving the cabinet and the media

"Whether or not you like the deal, she hasn't come up with it for her own benefit"

Perhaps not financially but for her party, pride and self importance, most definitely.

Norway’s population is under 5.5 million. There are few similarities between the U.K. and Norway.

There are few similarities between the U.K. and Norway.

I'm not sure what your point is?

There aren't many similarities between the UK and Canada either, or between the UK and Turkey (the political declaration seems to envisage a relationship that may be closer to Turkey than Canada or Norway).

"Customs" is only part ot the inspection process and Jon Thomson naturally only covered what is within his remit

All EU countries have a comprehensive system of inspections & checks within each country.

For 3rd countries, i.e. outside the EU, these checks are at, or near, the EU borders.

Manufactured goods need reams of certifications:
product standards, electrical / crash / fire safety, recycling etc

Farming / agricultural / food products need extensive phyto-sanitary checks

This EU Commission table summarises the checks done in cooperation with Customs, but not by them

Should have gone for a Norway type deal so.

OH, but, that would never have solved the Free Movement issue.

So UK (if Norway type deal) will still have to pay billions, will still have to observe rules and regs, but will have no voice at the table.

Why bother. Norway keeps its head down, does what it has to do, but at the end of the day is a very rich country and takes what it can from EU Norway.

Has UK got the same criteria as Norway?

I know I shouldn't, but looking at the 'comments' on the Daily Express reports of May's speech, a lobotomy could be considered an upgrade for many of them.

The irony is, who knows or cares who is in charge in a country like Norway.

I cannot name any of their politicians, but I don't have to, it is their choice, and they seem to be ok with that.

UK is a disaster now. IMO.

Misti Right in the last few weeks of negotiation, May decided that a Turkey +++ deal would solve the NI border
but she also demanded the benefits of Norway re frictionless trade.

Barnier naturally wasn't fooled and copied a huge chunk of the SM rules into the CU part,
to avoid the UK having the huge advantage of being able to trade without following EU rules about workers' rights or the environment etc.

May had no choice at that stage except to swallow it all down, even though there were only a few crumbs of cake

So we have a Turkey forcibly mated to Norway, with much squawking and loss of feathers.
About a 50% chance that May can palm off the ugly offspring produced

Perhaps not financially but for her party, pride and self importance, most definitely.

Given that the Conservative party is split, there have been calls for her removal as PM and few people think she will survive past March, if those things are her main priority she hasn't done very well.

Leaving seems to be so much problematic than staying in.

+++ this and that, for what?

Trying to stay calm here!