Westminstenders: Flextension

[RedToothBrush]

Just wrote an intro and wiped it. So this is as quick as I can sum up.

EU response is extension to 22nd May if May passes her deal by 29th March

Or an unconditional extension to 12 April which could be extended with a plan and understanding to take part in EU elections.

This isn't what may wanted. It gives her less time and leverage

It opens up the possibility of her being ousted as PM in the next couple of days. Graham Brady asked her to quit on Monday. Remain Cabinet ministers are threatening to quit if May whips a vote to support no deal.

The talk is May has indeed flipped to supporting no deal with many think she's pretty much gone full on Colonel Kurtz.

The EU are in effect supporting parliamentary sovereignty and are being incredibly reasonable.

May now has to decide whether to accept.

The whole situation looks explosive and likely that one half of the cabinet or the other are on the brink of walking. And May's power is so shattered.

However she remains the gatekeeper and as it stands if she's hell bent on no deal, it will be extremely difficult for Parliament to prevent that.

Thanks BCF

I’ve seen how many times the EU have said the WA cannot be changed but I’m still under the impression that is based on our current red lines.

I’ve not seen anything which says if those changed, the WA potentially couldnt too.

fluffy Your negotiations probably don't have possible serious harm if there is fruitless delay.
You may not have one side that just wants rid of the other side rather than more dithering.

A PV is NOT a sufficient plan, if the HoC have not agreed on the rough questions.

The EU know the HoC is logjammed,
so they would be naive fools to rely on the HoC agreeing questions that would be acceptable to the EU, i.e. that have feasible options.

Also, the HoC might vote down a PV first, if they think there is a magic PD coming later

bear The EU probably think that is too obvious / insulting to say - and they are concerned about being accused to dictating to the UK -
but for our MPs maybe they need to spell it out !

This December ref gives an idea of how they see real negotiations happening - after the deal has been approved:

The EU says it is not open for renegotiation but will start negotiations as soon as parliament agrees on the deal.

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-heads-to-brussels-for-brexit-talks-after-surviving-confidence-vote-11579370

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker tells Sky's Faisal Islam that

negotiations on Britain's future relationship with the EU will be able to begin "immediately" after Theresa May's deal is approved by Westminster and the European Parliament.

To get the 22 May, then Parliament has to vote for the WA, including the backstop, and PD as it stands (although the EU might be prepared to accept some changes to the PD as all it does it provide guidelines to the actual trade/relationship negotiations which only start after we leave ), by 12 April. The extension is only a technical one to allow the UK to pass the enabling legislation.

If Parliament doesn't pass it by 12 April, then unless we have instead passed legislation to hold EU elections in May, then we crash out.

The UK can also choose to revoke until 12 April (if the WA hasn't passed), or, in theory, until 22 May if the WA had passed therefore highly unlikely

Those are the only absolutes.

If, over the next few weeks, Parliament somehow manages to agree formally (and pass the legislation) to hold a clearly defined PV (Corbyn, I'm looking at you ), then the EU might agree to a longer extension.

Ditto with a GE.

But both those latter options require participation in the EU Parliament elections.

It's as existential to the EU (which, contrary to "popular" opinion, is a democracy ) as the 4 Pillars of the Single Market that the Brexiters and those negotiating on behalf of the UK keep crashing into.

I’m still not getting it!

The WA is based on our current red lines.

If you can show me something which states that if we had a radical change of plan and wanted to stay in SM/CU the current WA would still stay exactly the same then I’ll shut up! 😂

bear The backstop can't be changed - it is the most legally watertight insurance policy that is practical.
The MPs hate the backstop because it is legally binding, with legal penalties if the UK breaks it.

The EU would be fools to trust us and weaken this in any way, whatever red lines we dropped

• the next PM can pick up those red lines again may or her successor can pick them up after one phone call from Arlene or the ERG

The big issue is that no Parliament can ITSELF bind its successor

Hence an insurance policy that uses international law, which the HoC cannot overwrite

bear What do you want to change ?

It is the backstop that is holding up WA approval, so any other changes are pointless

The EU have said countless times that cannot be changed in any way.
Full stop

They have not specifically said it can't be changed if we get a new PM
or if we pay Ireland 100 billion quid
or if there is a nuclear war
or if we drop red lines

I’m still not getting it!

The WA is based on our current red lines.

If you can show me something which states that if we had a radical change of plan and wanted to stay in SM/CU the current WA would still stay exactly the same then I’ll shut up!

A radical change of plan would require a long extension - to allow time to negotiate new WA. This isn’t the same as re-negotiating the current WA. That is already in its final form.

(I’m in London now - just having a fortifying coffee break)

I'm at Reading station and there's are loads of people heading to the protest. I wish we were going!

Have a great time everyone.

I don't agree with that. Not unless you state the terms of the PV. Otherwise you could end up with parliament arguing the toss over the terms for months. Including what is even on the ballot.

Which is why you have a timed plan for the next stages to take place in the lead up to the PV. We don't have much time to be fannying about and the EU wants to avoid no deal. As long as the house is clear on the available exit options, I don't necessarily agree that the EU will need the wording of the PV immediately.

BCF, what you've said shows you don't know my job (which I would expect you to). Of course serious implications (in the scheme of things) can arise. Of course one side may be sick of dithering about. At which point you wouldn't be able to negotiate and the Court would have to decide (much like the EU the other day due to TM's intransigence).

In litigation / negotiation, you tend to have reasonable lawyers who look at the situation AS A WHOLE, including what's best for their clients, as well as what a Court is likely to decide as well as saving costs. On the other side you have lawyers who seem to think it's their own money they're spending and say no to everything, regardless of reasonableness (that dreaded word!).

My gut feeling is that the EU27 are tended towards being reasonable than stamping their feet. Sadly, TM is the latter sort who's got us into these problems.

A radical change of plan would require a long extension - to allow time to negotiate new WA. This isn’t the same as re-negotiating the current WA. That is already in its final form.

That’s what I’m saying too. This WA can’t be changed but a new one could be drawn up based on an entirely different proposal eg staying in SM/CU. So it’s not the case that this WA has to pass whatever happens.

There will NOT be a new WA

Any renegotiation will be only on the PD
which hardly affects anything in the WA

Anna Soubry said on C4 that MPs finally understood this - that they can only change the PD

The long extension is because after they vote for the rough direction, e.g. SM+CU
there will have to be negotiations on the detail & the practicalities

This will have to be put into pages of detailed legal text by the drafting team
then presented to all countries for minor changes
then redrafted with these changes
then approved by all heads of govt and the HoC and EP

This would take several months

How did all this start again? Why was there a referendum in the first place?

The issue of passing the WA is to establish timing and certainty (as far as possible) over hard content. The EU are insisting, quite rightly that the UK signs up to the WA and to a slightly lesser degree the PD as it stands. This is so that businesses and EP activities can progress as at the moment this messing about is playing directly into the hands of those (USA/Russia) who want to destabilise the EU.
Once the WA is signed off and the UK is in a transition period, on the basis that the EU would have liked the UK to remain in the EU, particularly if it shows a willingness to behave like a 'grown up' I would guess that all manner of 'fudging' could go on but not anything that would undermine the 4 pillars.
At some point in the next couple of years the 'unicorns and sunny uplands' promised by leave will be exposed as the UK government will not be able to make good on any of it's 'leave' promises. The 'bank of Carney/May' does not have enough money in it to deliver the promises made, and worse, no one in government of either main flavour has any real intention to sort out inequality and post traditional industrial activity.

It is the backstop that is holding up WA approval, so any other changes are pointless

The back stop is required because we want to leave SM/CU

If we agreed to stay in those then the wording of the WA could change as the backstop would no longer be a problem.

Agreed that we’d also need wording to prevent us changing our mind and thinking nothing else changes too

Whilst I know this is unlikely, I’m just trying to clarify the assertion that this WA has to pass for any deal as I just don’t think it is correct.

fluffy You are regarding this as the kind of negotiation you do
It isn't, unless you negotiate between governments

What would you do if you were representing a client and the other side kept promising and then reneging or being unable to deliver ?
Wouldn't you refuse to grant them a big concession - which a long extension is - until they had signed off on precise terms that you could accept.

The 2 sides are grossly unequal in power, which many in the UK don't realise

Whilst I know this is unlikely, I’m just trying to clarify the assertion that this WA has to pass for any deal as I just don’t think it is correct.

We have three weeks to find out.

Do you want to test this hypothesis with the risk of no deal if you are wrong?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3540727-Westminstenders-Pragmatism-versus-Purity?watched=1

New thread.

We ought to try and get away from discussing deal vs no deal?

The only leave options are
With a withdrawal agreement = orderly exit
Without a withdrawal agreement = disorderly exit

Both of these options are then followed by 2-10 years of negotiations for a deal, ie spanning at least two governments before the ultimate 'deal' is agreed. Needless to say a disorderly exit is more likely to lead to long drawn out negotiations.

bear The backstop has to remain watertight, because otherwise the UK would probably renege

If the Uk does not intend to renege, then the backstop is irrelevant, because it would never be used

Sure
If the Uk had gone for the SM+Cu in the beginning and had not reneged so often
If govt ministers had not openly said they planned to renege
If they hadn't given insulting speeches saying that the EU is the enemy and they want it destroyed
....

then there never would have been a backstop

But we are where we are, no Tardis

Trust once destroyed takes decades of good behaviour to restore

{How did all this start again? Why was there a referendum in the first place?}

It hasn't started again, it never stopped. It is quite clear that the HoC in particular have not taken on board the very few options that are available revoke/WA/no deal and are still, after 3 years, thinking that there are any other options. They are arguing over the WAY that the UK might come to an informed decision over the 3 possible choices and with the process of some that are outright lying, some that are not bright enough to understand what is going on and 'others' it is a true dogs dinner.

Frankie Leaving without a deal would mean that the EU would NOT even start to negotiate until the UK has signed up to the main items in the WA:

i.e.
.expat rights (not controverial)
.exit bill (many Brexiters wanting this to be conditional on a signed trade deal - the EU would refuse)
.backstop - the EU would insist

So we would have to suck up the WA terms anyway

• maybe several months later after the economy has disappeared down a black hole -

but would not get the benefits of transition, since that would no longer be legally possible.

Do you want to test this hypothesis with the risk of no deal if you are wrong?

No, I’d like someone to prove that what they are saying about this WA having to be approved for any deal.

As it stands, it appears to be no more than other people’s ‘hypothesis’.

Whilst it’s truly shocking how little clarity there is on this, as fluffy said, it’s not helpful to be stating things as facts which are just interpretations.

If we get an extension based on a new plan, which would have to be fundamentally different to our current plan for it to be agreed, then the 3 weeks is no longer relevant, it’s the new deadline which is relevant.

And I haven’t seen anything which states a new WA could not be negotiated based on the new plan.

The UK (HoC, parliament and the 'leave' voters) are STILL after 3 years failing to come up with a defined version of 'leave'. They all have a different take on what is important to them.
How long it will take to get a consensus to decide how to leave the EU and then what they want in negotiations for the PD / WA is many years away.

I don't understand that Labour tweet: DH has had several emails this week from LabourSay.eu, including one from David Milliband, encouraging people to go on the march. DM says he'll be there.

Is the tweet genuine?