WA or No Deal?

[bellinisurge]

Asked this on a few Brexit threads and didn't get an answer so asking it separately.
Bored of listening to bad winners whining about Juncker and evil EU and all that tedious bollocks. It's come down to this binary question and which is it.
As someone who voted Remain, I prefer shit deal over no Deal.
No Deal would be a humanitarian catastrophe.
Which is it for you?

I am still waiting for any suggestion from the government how it will replace all the industry, manufacturing and financial that will be moving to the EU when the UK leaves.
It is all wonderful talking about new trade opportunities but where is the money coming from for this trade? Money has to come in, as well as going out.

I am still a big fan of Michael Gove. I am guessing he is playing his cards close to his chest.
I prefer no deal but I can accept WA because I feel it is a compromise.
And I am also a fan of Nigel Farage. They are not mutually exclusive.
And yes I book holidays and buy for Christmas and birthdays. However, that is not "seeing into the future". It is planning for events that I know, with certainty (excluding death of course) will happen.

Sadly I think it will have to be the chaos of no deal.
Not sure how that will end
but it will be messy

We are already members of the WTO.
And the ECJ does a hell of a lot more than judge trade disputes. It can overrule our own court.
You are really going for the scare tactics aren't you.
"Project Fear" and George Osborne's supposed emergency budget are tame compared to you lot.

We are already members of the WTO
As part of our EU membership.
And once standing alone will be subject to veto by 149 countries
and rules will be set by 480 unelected technocrats in Geneva.
And the WTO does not cover services.

No country in the world trades on just WTO terms.
The UK will be on a very lonely path

Does anyone know how the EU came to the amount of £39billion settlement within the agreement?

{We are already members of the WTO.}
Yes and no.
The UK was a member of the WTO in it's own right originally but it handed over it's negotiating 'team' to the EU so it could act jointly as a bloc of 500 Million rather than 60 Million.
So technically it has 'membership approval' which basically means it has proven it has the correct financial mechanisms to trade but when the UK leaves the EU it will fall back to the 'basic' rates and lose ALL the trade deals it has as part of the EU.
This is where the 40% tariff for meat comes from, but as a rough average of the various categories for the things that are traded with the EU at zero rate, it will become around 10%. If the UK manufactures something using materials from outside the UK, the 10% tariff goes onto the raw materials on the way in, then another 10% when the UK sells it.
Thus the cost of producing something in the UK compared to within the EU could be approaching 20% greater.

If for some reason the UK wanted to make beef pies using EU sourced beef, the tariff would be 40% on the way in and possibly 15% to sell the finished pies back to the EU (tariffs are different rates for practically anything you can think of).

Girlsblouse
Its in their documents

• pension commitments for MEPs (Farage and co)
• wages and pension commitments for British employees
• payments towards existing programmes that have years to run
• a small admin charge to manage the above

yeah... already members, so will be money to pay every year as part of membership. We fully agree.

Americans hear constant stories about how unfair, arbitrary, undemocratic, sovereignty-infringing and otherwise overbearing WTO rules are (to the USA). Those complaints go back to before WTO was formed, even, there were recurring complaints about the GANTT system, too.

Worries that modern USA is trying to destroy WTO and its arbitration process are well founded. For Americans who hate the WTO (as much as Farage hates EU) this is actually good news. Disrupters (like Julie Birchill) win. They want chaos for entertainment value, and they don't want a rules-based system for resolving disputes. Might makes Right will be the new resolution system. 2/3 current judges' terms end in December 2019. No arbitration process will be possible if they aren't replaced.

{Does anyone know how the EU came to the amount of £39billion settlement within the agreement?}
Not specifically but negotiators discussed this right at the beginning of the process. The UK pays roughly £9 - 10 Billion a year to the EU as membership fee (quite a small percentage) plus the contributions to the funds that support the various activities that the EU gets up to. Some of this comes back to the UK for regional redevelopment funds, where parts of towns get funding, but also business development funds to help start ups and to universities. Farmers get subsidies too.
the £39 billion is roughly about 19 Billion the UK owes until Match 29th, then another £20 Billion to cover the transition period during which time the money that flows back to the UK continues. If the UK crashes out in March, it would only pay the lesser amount but the other funding would stop immediately.

Full fact, Politico & business insider said these things about the £39 bn to pay. The payment isn't all at once, and some of it covers things like pensions (EU has long had reciprocal agreements on those betw. countries).

If UK leaves without paying, we prove ourselves to be unreliable in future agreements.

And the ECJ does a hell of a lot more than judge trade disputes. It can overrule our own court

Rubbish.... You don't even know what you voted for.

The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law, It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ

CopperSulph is maybe confusing ECJ with ECHR?
UK helped set up the ECHR. ECHR isn't part of EU membership but EU may insist UK allow some ECHR jurisdiction (with regard to things like workers' rights) for a trade deal to be set up betw. EU & UK. After Brexit, ECHR will continue to have whatever jurisdiction it already has over UK law unless UK formally withdraws from ECHR.

It is planning for events that I know, with certainty (excluding death of course) will happen.

Are you saying that you don't know whether the UK will leave the EU on 29/3?

The whole problem with this referendum is people like Coppersulphate (and me) were given a very important say in a critical matter in which they had little idea what they were voting for, the ECJ example but many others, did we know about ECHR (May seems to struggle with that one) EASA, Euratom, Euramuas, EEA, EFTA, the differences between SM and CU, the issues around GFA and NI, did they know we were heavily involved in a new GPS system ?

Now, we are pushing along with this crazy plan that risks the stability and economy of the UK and a return to violence in NI...all because a few MPs don't like the EU.

"No crystal ball" as a criticism of other posters simply doesn't make any sense as long as it is being uttered by somebody who also says XYZ "will" happen.

I'd have marginally more respect for "no crystal ball" if it came from an honest position of passive, fatalistic nihilism in which nobody could possibly know anything about any aspect of the future and so we should just all lie down, switch off all thought processes, and wait for events to flow around our supine meat-puppet bodies until we're mercifully claimed by oblivion. Etcetera

I had to turn off R5L this morning. Some geezer on promoting leaving on WTO terms (claimed he helped write WTO terms) and especially talked up the merits of 'No money paid to Europe' as part of divorce deal. In next breath he talked about making a terrific future deal with EU would naturally follow (once they saw we weren't pushovers).

Er, why would you give any kind of 'good deal' to a party who just stiffed you on all their promised commitments in past trading relationship, including clearly-stated club membership fees, pensions for MEPs and pensions for past EU residents in UK who paid NI?!! If we want a terrible future trade deal with EU single market, than not paying our exit bill is a sure way to guarantee it.

The ECJ can overrule our own courts on matters such as human rights. When we leave we will not have to comply with EU laws.
I am not confusing it with the ECHR.
And yes, I am sure we will be leaving the EU at the end of March, but like everyone else I do not know the terms of our leaving.
Those comparing this with Christmas and birthdays are being stupid.
I know exactly what I voted for. You may not like this and may not agree with me. That's fine.
But I do know and I knew when I voted.
Stop being so patronising.
I know many leave voters including my family. These are professional young people with young children. Some of them will be affected by Brexit but we all agree it will be worth it.

Jasjas,
It is more than a few MPs who don't like the EU.
Over 17million of us.

Some of them will be affected by Brexit but we all agree it will be worth it.
But do you agree with JRM that the benefits are worth waiting 50 years to see ?

The ECJ refers to ECHR case law.

The ECJ has :

EU law has led to changes in UK law, which protect equality and human rights. These include:
• data protection: including greater protections for individuals around the information held about them
• human trafficking: including greater protections for victims of trafficking
• rights of victims of crimes: making sure that victims of crime, and their family, have the right to information, support and protection
• disability rights: including improved protections at work and Braille labelling for medicine
• workplace discrimination: including protection on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age
• equal pay: making sure that men and women receive equal pay for equal work.

The utter, utter bastards who wants laws like this? We are being oppressed by the EU! I can't believe they are legislating to make this country a fair and equal place.

I do agree with JRM
And as far as the ECJ is concerned it is not the laws themselves that I take issue with. We are quite capable of making and implementing these laws ourselves.
It is the fact that it is being done by a court that is not a UK court.

We will remain subject to international law. We will remain subject to the ECHR. When we trade with the EU we will have to continue to abide by EU laws.

In an increasingly globalised economy we will have to trade under WTO rules.

The days when we lived in splendid isolation are over.

Leaving the EU will mean we have less say in laws we have to abide by.

British influence in the ECJ is considerable, that is being thrown away on a 19th century belief that the U.K. can exist without reference to others.

Coppersulphate

It is the fact that it is being done by a court that is not a UK court

We have a say, in future we'll not, the ECJ will still be the ultimate court, as to trade with the EU in the manner we need to, the EU will demand it and we'll accept, just as Mays deal does now.

UK's defence is underwritten by the USA and NATO, it is not being done by UK soldiers, what's the difference?

You are obv hardcore Leave but among the 17m you are in a minority, i was referring to the few MPs who are holding first DC and now May hostage.

We are quite capable of making and implementing these laws ourselves.

But we don’t.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 was at least prompted by the need to have this incorporated into UK legislation for joining the EEC. But the equal pay for equal work concept, already enshrined by the EEC/EC, had to be enforced for the UK by the ECJ in 1982.