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?

Normality is being redefined, and will change again come Brexit day.

I want Revoke as that is the best deal we have

*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.*

I don't support it. I'd obviously prefer revoke. But the WA is compatible with the least damaging forms of Brexit so I can understand why people are prepared to support it if the alternative is no deal.

I know that in theory revoke is possible, but the odds on May revoking in time are not very good.

Since the UK is leaving, where are the strong leaders with vision that are going to lead the UK to prosperity or even regain the position that the UK was in 3 years ago? So far there is nothing apart from ferrets fighting in a sack.
It is time the UK found some grown ups to actually do a job.

The easiest way to understand why the WA+TP is a disaster is to imagine the UK being made to walk the plank, like in a pirate film. The water below the plank is boiling with sharks.

The WA defines what the plank is like, and how much of ship life will continue once you've walked out onto it. The transition period defines how long you have on the plank before you have to make the leap.

So under the TP, the UK will be standing for 18+ months at the very tippy-tip of the plank, staring down at the circling teeth. There's no way back onto the ship - that way's closed off by having left the EU. So we're just swaying and shivering and watching our doom eyeing us up.

Life on the plank's not too disastrous. It's definitely not as great as being on the ship, but it's bearable.

But as soon as the transition period ends, the plank gets jerked abruptly from under our feet, and it's into the sharks we go. Chomp, gulp, the end.

So we have 18 months or so to work out how to change our situation so that we avoid the sharks. Without getting back on the ship, because that avenue's closed off (we would have to apply via Article 49, way too long and complicated to be of any value during the TP).

But if MPs spend the TP bickering over what Brexit should look like, just as they have done for over 2.5 years already, we'll get nothing. The full horror of no-deal will hit us at the end of the TP, just as it's threatening to do on 29 March 2019 because we haven't reached a deal yet.

The biggest danger with the WA isn't the WA itself, but the fact that it makes MPs feel "safe" enough to vote for it. It feels like progress, because it "delivers Brexit". But in reality it seals our fate. Right now, we could still retract Article 50 and remain. Once we're out, that escape hatch goes away. We will have no treaties, no agreements, no trade deals, only a pale copy of the effects of them. So we will have to rebuild our international standing (something that has taken 40+ years to establish) in 18 months.

How likely does that seem, honestly?

The only thing to add to EdwinH's post is that if within a reasonable period of time, say 6 months to a year, the UK collectively decided that it has made a terrible mistake, the readmission would be relatively easy as reverting to current legislations and laws is understood, and would not be like a new country attempting to join.
There would need to be a clear indication that the UK really wants to rejoin, and with the likes of the ERG and 'influences' that will be very difficult.
The biggest issue is not Brexit as such, but the majority of the government/HoC/HoL cannot decide on a direction the UK should take which the EU nor anyone else can decide for them.

I disagree. Readmission still requires running the gauntlet of vetos from every member state, and they'll all be lining up to get concessions from us in return. Why? Because we will be negotiating from a position of having nothing whatsoever, quite literally the weakest position we could possibly be in, while the clock will be ticking down our doom. It's British exceptionalism to expect otherwise.

I believe that Mr Junker has said repeatedly, although not necessarily in the last month, that the UK would be looked upon favourably and could rejoin on the same terms as now.
Of course there would now be provisos that the UK must have a stable government and that the UK has not taken measures to undermine the EU during the transition period.
The lack of a stable government (nor any sign of one on the horizon) and the distinct possibility of underhand dealings by some cabinet ministers makes this a pretty remote possibility. I am not sure of whether vetoes would influence such a return, but there would probably be some wrangling going on within the EU which would probably see objections overruled.
But, like when making a rabbit stew, first catch your rabbit!

Both Tusk and Juncker have emphasized the UK is welcome to STAY IN under the same terms as now (which the court case confirmed anyway), e.g. this in January 2019...
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-donald-tusk-stop-reversed-eu-donald-tusk-2018-a8161321.html

Separately to that, Juncker has said that the UK would be welcome to rejoin under Article 49. But I don't think he said "under the same terms" in that context. At least, I can find no reference to it. It's confusing, because he commented about two completely different things (changing our mind before Brexit day and staying in / reapplying after we leave) at about the same time and both were widely reported in the press.
www.politico.eu/article/juncker-lets-use-article-49-to-let-the-brits-rejoin-eu/

That avenue is too far gone now. The toys have been thrown out of the pram. The pram has been set on fire and is now dumped in a canal.
It is unreasonable to expect business to wait another year or three for the UK government to make it's mind up where the UK is going so unless it were to get into massive bribes territory the show is almost over.

At time May drew her red lines, ERG wasn't much of a force. May's redlines precede prominence of ERG. ERG has really only had "power" in last yr or so.

Yes I know EU would let UK stay... but the rabid Brexiters have too much momentum, sympathy, support - those supporters won't let UK revoke A50. Many people who voted Remain in 2016 would vote Leave now b/c A) they resent being asked again B) they feel the first result should be "respected"; C) they perceive now that Project Fear was a lie since nothing too awful happened so far.

The only way Brexit can be stopped is if many prominent Leave supporters come out to say it was a mistake. Pride goes before the fall, though. So rest of us are stuffed while the tiny number of deluded people who think No Deal is fine get their way.

If there was another vote I would say the UK should leave, as I have done for a good while, despite voting remain originally mainly because the way the UK has negotiated (or not) is so undiplomatic and unstatespersonlike which has stirred up unnecessary animosity.
If it had been the case that negotiations were being had and that the UK had a firm plan but was just struggling to get it over a line, then yes do whatever is necessary, but now there is too much 'steam' and vested interest going on to make continued integration with Europe (at the level it is now) unrealistic. I feel it is a mistake of course, but the boil needs lancing and just revoking now won't do the job. That said a swift but organised departure should happen which would ideally be WA minus (declare the intentions sooner rather than later) so that both the UK and EU can be clear on where it is headed..

The only way Brexit can be stopped is if many prominent Leave supporters come out to say it was a mistake

I voted leave and have said this a number of times that I now think it was a mistake

My problem with the WA is exactly as @EdwinH writes. It's basically the last two years stupidity being extended without the possibility of an 'easy' revoke.

Part of me thinks that a no deal, chaos and misery for a couple of years, people actually blaming our exit (rather than the EU, the elites, immigrants, aliens, contrails or big pharma) for it would hasten a groundswell of rejoin fervour. It won't because of our partisan media and grubby, self serving representatives but I live in hope.

The problem is that people will die in the event of no deal and that's unconscionable.

The far right stories want no deal as they will financially benefit personally and use the chaos unleashed to push even more austerity, deregulation and the removal of basic protections. The super rich will benefit, everyone else will suffer.

I agree with Clerc - WA, WA(minus) is better than 'crash out' and that things have gone too far now, the UK needs to Leave the EU - even if it's because the EU don't want us anymore as we're not like them and too different.

The EU, even now would want us to stay - there is another public vote, i'll be Remain all the way!

Its all very well saying we are "not like them" and "different" but really? are we that odd? Are the Spanish like the Germans or the Swedes like the Italians?

We've been an active member of the EU for decades, a stalwart in defence and technology, were the authors of the SM and together with other more eurosceptic countries such as Poland, Sweden & Denmark been a calming influence on federalisation.

Until more recent years, most people couldn't care less about the EU.

We are where we are because selfish cunts in the Tory party stirred the pot, blaming the EU for their self inflicted problems and despite what many imagine, they don't give a fuck about you.