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.

bear When people talk of renegotiation of the WA, it is about meaningful renegotiation of the actual terms
e.g. weakening the backstop

Your post just refers to

1. minor text updates, that don't change the provisions / substance at all.

Obviously any minor changes of text that refer to the Uk being in a different future relationship would be updated

The date of Brexit would change too

2. The financial commitments Which aren't actual numbers iirc, merely methods of calculation / formula

• which won't change, merely the figures that are put in would do so

The exit bill is basically an agreed sum per year while we are a member,
plus another sum per year in transition,
plus all the outstanding debts that remain, e.g. Farage's pension and those of the other MEPs, civil servants etc

I’m not being argumentative for the sake of it

Yes you are

I’m really not! I honestly don’t get this.

The financial interest section is basically about buying our way out and paying our dues during transition. If we were to be planning on staying in the SM/CU that changes as we’d need a long term agreement and less of a transition wouldn’t we?

It sounds to me like we are essentially agreeing that the backstop cannot change but much of the rest of the narrative could.

The difference is, I’d class that as renegiating the WA, as both parties would need to agree these, and you think the only thing that can be defined as a change to the WA relates to the backstop.

The WA is only an agreement about how we leave
plus an interim deal until / unless we negotiate a new trade deal in several years time

So it has to cover those transition years with all the protection that Ireland & the EU want,
plus the backstop if we renege, or can't come to a deal (i.e. still demand cake)

Once we have a trade deal e.g. an SM+CU / CA, it would probably specifically overwrite the WA

I don't think bear is being argumentative for the sake of it. That's a rather patronising attitude to take.

Thanks icannot

Admittedly it is unusual for people on the same side to be having such discussions but I do feel some posts are misleading.

I think if this discussion had started out as ‘any WA has to include the backstop’ it would have ended there.

It is quite misleading to be implying the only important element of the WA is the backstop

bear As I posted, the final trade deal in 2030 or whenever would over-ride the WA
and it is the final trade deal that would likely make very substantive changes over what was in the WA
Until then, the WA is needed in current form

However, what your recent posts discuss are not about meaningful changes to terms & conditions of the WA

Text updates / language changes may be necessary, but are "housekeeping" things that are discussed in nitty-gritty drafting sessions by the tech staff

They certainly won't address matters that would affect the votes of MPs

it's like if you have a degree, then marry and want to change your name on the certificate
It doesn't change the fact that you have achieved say an M Sc Physics

it doesn't mean that you can change the certificate to PhD English Lit

There are many moving and interlocking parts to the outcome, as I understand it.

As long as the Mays red lines remain, the WA won't be up for any revision.

Drop the red lines, and there's everything to play for, and an extension would be available and the WA could be renegotiated.

But we return to what are the red lines ? and why are they there ?

I have posted that the WA contains several important items, negotiated at length, that the EU also won't want to change

• you remember those green and white charts that Barbier used to show for progress - they had much more than the backstop

However, these also won't change if the PD changes
Only the final trade deal might do over-write them

One exception: the UK could agree to restore expats rights to what we have now
The EU would probably be fine with that, as it is what they wanted originally.

They certainly won't address matters that would affect the votes of MPs

Of course they potentially could.

If Brexit changed direction and an extension was agreed based on us staying in the SM/CU that could massively affect votes of MP’s as it could only happen if they had approved going in that direction in the first place.

Why would the current WA need to be approved if that was the direction we had moved to?

What would be the point in MPs voting on something based on us leaving SM/CU when we no longer planned to?

It would have to be redrafted in that case. And still include the backstop.

As long as the Mays red lines remain, the WA won't be up for any revision.

Drop the red lines, and there's everything to play for, and an extension would be available and the WA could be renegotiated.

So you say I’m being argumentative then completely agree with what I’ve been saying all along. 🤔

If the red lines change the WA could change

DG That's my whole point- and is stated by the EU in the link from indistinct

Even if red lines are dropped, the WA itself is not up for renegotiation: the EU have said that

Only the PD can be renegotiated

Soubry admitted they had only recently realised this

This is because dropping red lines is not binding on a future negotiation carried out by a totally different govt in 2025
or indeed on the next PM who may be an ERG member

There will be minor "tidying up / housekeeping" changes that the legal team will make to the draft
but no sustantive changes to the WA

BCF that link was from January, before any talk of extensions etc.

It’s simlpy not valid to say it is binding now.

If we fundamentally changed approach to Brexit in order to get an extension the WA would have to be changed to reflect that.

Bear As I keep trying to explain, the PD is only a framework about the future
It is not legally binding if one or both parties change their minds

EU has no guarantee that the UK will not go for a very different trade deal under a different PM and government during transition

Also, the only provision in the WA that is really concerned about the future - other than the calculation methods for the exit and transition bills - is the backstop

Let's acknowledge it: the reason the WA won't be passed this week is the backstop, not the other WA terms
(OK and May having pissed off everyone and the ERG wanting No Deal regardless)

All the attempts at renegotiation of the WA ever since December have been about the backstop.
Nothing else

All the attempts at renegotiation of the WA ever since December have been about the backstop. Nothing else

Agreed. And I totally agree that element has to stay in any WA because we have shown ourselves to be untrustworthy.

But it is simply wrong to be saying that nothing else in the WA could substantially change if we fundamentally changed our Brexit plan. There is no evidence, based on current circumstances that supports that.

The EU might have said the WA couldn’t change but that was when TM was insisting we were leaving on Friday.

We’re not leaving then, so all bets are off again.

Bear The EU have said no renegotiation of the WA
Even if we drop red lines
They do NOT blink

The problem is that when they dropped the very open demand for the HoC to approve the WA before any extension,
too many people have taken that as an indication that they will blink and let us renegotiate the WA

That original demand showed their real thinking
There is the illusion that the Uk has the power to reopen the WA (more than minor drafting updates)
It doesn't
It's time we realisd exactly the position we are in

Also, the backstop has only ever been an excuse. The ability to avoid it has always been within our power.

For many it’s just a convienent excuse for not choosing a path which pleases no one.

We need a backstop for any agreement as we can’t be trusted.

But it is simply wrong to be saying that nothing else in the WA could substantially change if we fundamentally changed our Brexit plan the EU have stated on numerous occasions it cannot be amended...

Good luck to all the marchers and stay safe.

So you say I’m being argumentative then completely agree with what I’ve been saying all along.

What was the point of a grinny face if people ignore it. Sheeez. You guys are so uptight. Take a chill pill.

If I'd have known I couldn't build up a decent reputation here, I'd have name changed a fuck of a lot more. We haven't even started on unknown prog rock stars from the 70s, or little known members of the Golden Dawn.

Here's a fucktonne of smileys to say: JOKE

BCF I would still argue that stating as fact something which was based on a very different set of circumstances is potentially misleading.

Was it 108 times mesTM said we’re leaving on 29th? Look how that worked out.

We are clearly not going to agree here.

If we do change our Brexit path fundamentally then one of us will be proved right.

If we don’t, we’ll never know.

😂

Back at you DGR

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

And 1 for luck

😆