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.

The EU have repeatedly said the WA cannot be renegotiated

They have repeatedly stated that the backstop cannot be

The renegotiation you seem to want would be to weaken the backstop
That is not going to happen

{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. }

But then you have Geoffrey Cox, Attorney General who is only able to express an 'opinion' at the top of this mess there is no concrete answer. The UK has 'gamed' this whole episode and now push comes to shove it is becoming obvious that there are some significant holes in UK governance procedure.

The EU don't trust us, so they need this insurance policy to stop the UK choosing a course after Brexit that requires a hard border

How shameful that it's necessary!

If the HoC vote on a PD thinking they can change the WA too,
then they might well reverse their vote during a long extension, once this doesn't happen

There were a lot of other items in the WA that took hard negotiating and are very important to both sides
The EU are not going to reopen these either

The EU just want to close Brexit as quickly as possible, one way or the other.

They think they can cope better with No Deal than the endless instability of the UK unable to decide what it wants, but whining away as a member blocking other things that other mebers want

The Plane is on its way back to the US.

So whatever its about, its been done.

Bye bye plane.

This is why the EU initially wanted to make any extension dependent on passing the WA next week

To end all this discussion about renegotiating the WA itself.

They realised however that the HoC need more time for a reality check - and that this condition was thought ver provocative by the Uk

That is the problem:
when the EU tries to define clearly what it wants the HoC to do, it is "dictating"

Oh, plane is gone

Farage is still here
So is Banks
So is Assange

Maybe Mueller doing some last-minute shopping before Brexit chaos ?

Mays whips told her to leave and announce her resignation, she's ignored them. Leavers plan to bring her down if there's a soft a Brexit and remainers plan to do the same if she no deals..... JFC....

www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/alexwickham/cabinet-ministers-are-plotting-to-oust-theresa-may-as-her?__twitter_impression=true

This is why the EU initially wanted to make any^ extension dependent on passing the WA next week

Again, where is the evidence for that?

The fact they didn’t suggests it can be amended / redrafted.

The backstop would not be required in an SM/CU deal so the wording would need to be changed accordingly, whilst not giving us opportunity to wiggle out of it by then saying we didn’t want to be in SM/CU after all.

But then you have Geoffrey Cox, Attorney General who is only able to express an 'opinion' at the top of this mess there is no concrete answer

Totally agree, which is why I think the discussion here about this WA having to pass for any deal, should be caveated by saying they are opinions, not stating them as facts.

Unless there is actual evidence that they are indisputable facts.

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/21/european-council-art-50-conclusions-21-march-2019

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/21/remarks-by-president-donald-tusk-after-the-european-council-meeting-art-50

Bearbehind, please see uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-barnier/eu-open-to-closer-ties-with-britain-but-no-renegotiation-of-withdrawal-deal-idUKKCN1PA0PZ. Barnier states that UK can have a closer relationship with EU if it changes red lines but can’t renegotiate WA. It’s not explicitly clear if this statement would still apply in the event of new UK PM or government but suspect so. It’s this WA or nothing. The WA reflects the fact that the UK was in a poor negotiating position having triggered A50 (strategic error) and EU’s need to protect the GFA and peace on island of Ireland. Suspect EU would be fine with UK in EEA/EFTA & a CU as the outcome of next phase though.

The backstop WOULD be required, because the PD is not a legally binding trade deal several years in the future.

The PD is only the framework for what politicians now choose to aim for
We don't know what the next PM or the one after will decide

By definiton in the current WA, the backstop would only be activated if the conditions required it

Obviously if the UK does what it promises, then the backstop would never be used.

however, it needs to be there
Otherwise, the UK could just use the transition period to prep for No Deal / WTO
which would mean at least Ireland having to impose a border, or Irexit

From another thread
Democracy my arse, we had a vote that's democracy

Would I be correct in thinking that this group of people marry, only have children in wedlock and never get divorced. Sort of JRMitford type people.

Thanks indisticnt but that article is from January, which is a lifetime ago in this sorry mess!

I’m still not convinced that applies if the goalposts have moved, which is what will have to happen for a long extension to be approved.

I guess only time will tell.

bear That statement clearly says that the Uk can have a closer relationship if it abandons its red lines
but also

Asked if Barnier was suggesting reworking that outline of future ties, the EU executive’s chief spokesman told reporters:

“The withdrawal agreement - and, I repeat, the withdrawal agreement - ... is not open for renegotiation.”

If you look at the whole history of the negotiations, the EU has never budged on fundamental points, such as the backstop or the exit bill

All it offers are cosmetic changes, not changes of substance

Brexiters have this myth that the EU always blinks at the last moment
it doesn't

I know it says that BCF but that is based on the UK changing it’s red lines after approving the WA.

If it changed them in order to get an extension approved then I still think all comments about not changing the WA are void.

Any long extension is going to require pretty radical changes in order to be agreed by the EU.

Bearbehind
The only certainty in this life is death. Arguing the toss up until that point is always possible but in a situation as complex as Brexit you have to stand firm somewhere. The EU, fully understanding the complexities of the UK's situation set the WA and PD documents as a firm marker to make the UK government make a decision. The UK in a disgraceful display of arrogance, stupidity, bad faith and many other unhelpful attributes, for a variety of reasons are deliberately frustrating the EU who at the end of the day will have to be negotiated with if the UK is going to eat and trade in any reasonable manner.
Given a 'crash out' scenario, currently this coming Friday night, they could legally repatriate all EU citizens from the UK and refuse all communication and trade with the UK starting 30 March. They obviously don't want to but it is unreasonable for the UK (government) to act in such a disgusting manner.

bear Whatever changes might be agreed for the future relationship, the EU cannot be sure the UK won't renege
Hence the EU will stick to having a watertight backstop

The UK insistence on not having the backstop means it wants to keep renege as an option

bear The EU Commission and some member countries wanted to make the extension dependent on the WA being passed next week

After long discussion, they decided this would be regarded by the Uk as dictating to it
and that the EU could be blamed for causing No Deal
(German reports)
So that condition was dropped

However, it was not because anyone suddenly decided to trust the UK not to renege

At some stage, the UK either decides to accept the backstop, or it buggers off
The EU has been 100% firm about the backstop ever since it realised what a bunch of weasels it is dealing with

But the WA is much more than just the backstop- much of wording of the WA is based on us not being in the SM/CU.

That wording would have to change if our new ‘plan’ was to stay in both.

Likewise, our financial commitments would change too and, with a long extension, most of the dates would need to change.

I simply don’t understand how the current WA could possibly be applicable if we totally change our Brexit plan.

I understand if we changed our mind after we’d aproved the WA it’s a different story but if we take a completely new approach to Brexit in order to get an extension, it makes no sense to approve a WA based on a situation which is not the basis of the new plan.

Bearbehind
You are obviously being argumentative, possibly for the sake of it. The UK government are behaving atrociously and a resolution to the Brexit question has to be found.
It is obvious the UK will wriggle and manipulate, as it has done for 3 years so the EU have quite rightly said 'enough is enough' while being mindful that around half of the UK citizens do not want to leave the EU and that the original referendum was flawed. As a member of the EU the EP wants to be reasonable with the UK, but the UK is taking the piss big time and it has to stop. The EU is big enough and tough enough to take sanctions against the USA and Russia and it's ability to do this ought to be focusing minds in Westminster, but seemingly not, and the true implications of being a 'third country' are beyond what Westminster can comprehend, also related to the fact that the UK does not realise how much smaller it is about to become on the world stage. Tact, pragmatism and diplomacy, things that the UK had a reputation for have been comprehensively trashed and vicious, untrustworthy and backstabbing are among the new credentials it is being associated with.

Since the BBC seem a tad shy about putting the march on the front page by themselves (they're probably hoping a rabbit gets stuck in a well to make the evening headline) here's one link that people can click to help move the story up the charts ...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47678763

Leave aren't the only gamers in town ....

I’m not being argumentative for the sake of it. I’m actually disappointed that people on this thread are trying to shut down a debate where they cannot prove me wrong. It’s very reminiscent of Leavers.

I’m trying to get to the bottom of something which I think is very important.

A lot of people turn to these threads for information and stating things as facts on here when they are not lowers this thread to the same level as most MSM.

Yes, we have behaved atrociously and yes we will need a backstop written into and WA as we simply can’t be trusted, but that doesn’t alter my point which is that the only way we can agree a long extension is to fundamentally change our Brexit plan and, if that were to happen much of the WA would have to be updated to reflect that.

If you disagree please tell me how the wording of say the financial interest section of the WA would remain entirely relevant if our plan changed to remaining in SM/CU permanently.

Or how any of the dates remain relevant if we wanted say 2 year extension.