May's deal - am I missing something?

[PutsFootInIt]

I'll keep this brief.

May's deal isn't really a deal, it's just 2 more years in the eu and a backstop.

Technically if MPs voted for her deal we wouldn't be leaving the EU on 29th March. Why aren't they just voting for it then shaping the deal once she is inevitably ousted?

I get why people's vote supporters would reject it but the others just seem to be fighting her for the sake of it?

(Ps. I am a remainer)

Yes I have thought this as well.

The "deal" is just the deal for us leaving. Once we leave, we have to negotiate our future relationship with the EU during the transition period. If we don't manage to do that in 2 years ish, that's when the backstop comes in to play.

Because we do actually stop being an EU member. We keep the same trading and social conditions during transition, but we’ll have no MEPs, no Commissioner, no head of state in the EU Council, no government minister in the Council of Ministers and no rebate. If we change our mind and want to be an EU member again, we lose our opt-outs to Schengen and the Euro too.

Oops, forgot that we won’t have a judge in the ECJ too. Probably more.
We become a weaker negotiating partner.

TheNumberfaker

This is my concern. That the WA is a half way house, neither in nor out, which constrains the UK and ties us in, potentially forever or until the EU decides that we can be released, which might be never.

I would rather MPs revoke and then possibly rethink how we leave rather than hastily sign up for a terrible deal just to technically avoid facing up to not leaving.

It's the backstop re the Irish border - it ties the UK into an agreement that unless some magical new technology is developed in three years then the entire UK stays in the customs union. And the customs union means that the UK doesn't get to negotiate its own trade deals with other countries.

A lot of Brexiteers don't want to take the chance of this happening and the DUP are afraid that Northern Ireland alone will end up staying in the customs union and that's abhorrent to them.

I think a big part of the problem is that because May has led this first process for the benefit of the ERG, Labour have no guarantees that she (or whoever ends up as PM) will change course and listen to Parliament in the second phase. On the basis of these negotions, if it were to pass, it seems highly likely that we'd be here in two years time, with the next PM saying we have to respect the will of the ERG, and the mainstream middle should be ignored. Had she tried to form a cross-party committee to negotiate, with a guarantee that the same would occur in the next phase, I think she would have broadly got this deal over the line months ago.

{This is my concern. That the WA is a half way house, neither in nor out, which constrains the UK and ties us in, potentially forever or until the EU decides that we can be released, which might be never.}

That is a paranoid way to look at it. The EU don't want the transition phase to last forever, but the UK has to decide what it wants (and is reasonable to get) rather than a huge list of things that it does not want.
Given proper negotiation the WA is nothing to fear but the serious problem is that the UK has no damn clue what it wants, and therefore will never get it.

That is a paranoid way to look at it. The EU don't want the transition phase to last forever, but the UK has to decide what it wants (and is reasonable to get) rather than a huge list of things that it does not want.

Why would the EU not want that? Whilst we are in the WA we have to pay huge sums to the EU, whilst having no representation, no part in the decision making and no ability to form trade deals. So surely the EU gets all the benefits of us being "in" ie our money with none of the headache ie us vetoing plans or having a say.

Why would they not want that to continue?

I have not read the WA believe it covers goods (benefits the EU) and not services (disadvantages UK). If that is true (can someone confirm?) then it would not be paranoid to think the EU have got a lot more out of it than we have, and would therefore have a vested interest in allowing that to continue.

It's the backstop re the Irish border - it ties the UK into an agreement that unless some magical new technology is developed in three years then the entire UK stays in the customs union. And the customs union means that the UK doesn't get to negotiate its own trade deals with other countries.

Yes. And that's because of the GFA. The UK should have thought of this before it called the referendum. Cameron (and the MPs who agreed to the referendum) were either badly advised or ignored it. And I have said this on here again and again, I cannot understand why they can't grasp the issue now.

Yes the UK has to stay in the customs union. And yes that means no trade deals. But it also means we benefit from the EU ones and don't trash the economy (as much) as well as helping to maintain peace in NI. Win win, I'd say. Mystery to me why others can't see it.

havingtochangeusernameagain

In that case, what part of the WA is leave?

The contributions from the UK of around £10 Billion a year are not worth the 'agro' of having the UK deliberately being obstructive within Europe.
While the EU would like the UK to stay in, and act responsibly they are accepting that the UK thinks it wants to leave.
The whole of the WA is an organised and comprehensive approach to LEAVING. There is scope for some further discussion to determine the totality of leaving which is sensible because like it or not, if the UK wants to eat it at a price the UK can afford will still have to trade with the EU.

How can the UK cause disruption for the EU, within the WA? We would have no representation, no members of parliament, no input in policy or strategy. We would be constrained by any rules or regulations that they choose to impose whilst handing over payment each year. I really don't see a downside for the EU

{ I really don't see a downside for the EU}
Having a neighbouring country that is being a total pain in the arse by not negotiating isn't a 'downside'?

Not if they have no power, no I don't think it's a downside. We would be no more annoying than if we weren't in a WA surely? And whatever happens we will still be a neighbour - in the EU, left completely or in a WA - we aren't moving geographically only politically.

I'm bored now, the UK is leaving, end of.

I'm bored now, the UK is leaving, end of

Maybe it's time to delete your MN membership

Yep, absolutely as soon as the UK leaves, so that should be next Friday night.

Oh God, what will you do if UK doesn't leave on Friday?

Why aren't they just voting for it then shaping the deal once she is inevitably ousted?

Because it commits us to leaving without knowing what form that departure and what follows will take ("Blind Brexit"). Ideally, a consensus about that would have been reached and subjected to binding votes in parliament before Art.50 was even invoked.

If (when) she's ousted, that state of affairs becomes even more dangerous if her replacement is even worse (e.g. just as autocratic but more charismatic), which is all too imaginable.

The backstop objections are a bit of a red herring, imo. The ERG would object to WA on some other grounds if the backstop issue was resolved (resolvable).

Blind Brexit is mainly 'blind' because the UK has no idea of what it wants. The things that are POSSIBLE exist on the EU's website (and of course the UK has been working with them anyway).
The thing is the UK wants 'cake' and there will be no cake on offer but reasonable 'deals' would be, as long as EU members retain the 'best' deals.
The UK as a 'third country' stops being special and that upsets Westminster.

I'm bored now, the UK is leaving, end of. I agree.

What I don't get is that this is, apparently, the only deal the EU will countenance, so what do people expect TM to do? She can't just magic things so the EU agree to something else, can she? Except, of course, no Brexit - they'll go with that. Is that the whole point? (How dumb am I?!)

Why is May so hell bent on forcing through a hard Brexit, why did she choose to ignore a customs union as essential promised to so many by the leave campaign. A blind brexit is a deliberate act to remove the option of revoke when the horror of the future arrangement is fully apparent. Our only hope now is that some one sees sense and revokes, this is the only option in the national interest.
Brexit will shrink the state, reduce employment rights, reduce the UKs position on the world stage, line the pockets of the rich such as JRM gambling against the pound, force us to accept draconian US trade and economic policies and ultimately stagnate wages. If none of that effects you, if you dont use the NHS, Schools, benefits, local services or policing then feel free to be "out" and ignore Brexit.