To ask if people think we’d still have to sign the Withdrawl Agreement in the event of No Deal Brexit

[Bearbehind]

I try and keep up with all things Brexit but I’m baffled by this one.

There is a school of thought which says, even in the event of no deal, we’d still end up having to sign the withdrawl agreement in order to start to negiotiations as a third country on trade deals.

If it’s true then I struggle to understand why Theresa May never made this very clear because it would get the vote through wouldn’t it?

I can’t find anything conclusive on the subject - the WA had to be signed to get a deal but it’s not mentioned in a no deal scenario.

Interested to hear from Leave and Remain voters on this - what is your understanding?

If, even in the event of no deal, we need to sign the WA, why don’t we just get on wth it?

We're moving this thread over to our Brexit topic at the OP's request.

Thanks Jo.

itislleclerc and I are having is discussion on another thread; we disagree 😂

I get that it has to be signed for any deal but don’t think the WA applies in the event of no deal.

She thinks it has to be signed, even in the event of no deal.

What do others think?

It has to be signed whatever. There will be no trade negotiations with anyone without it being signed.

fluffy do you have a link that evidence that?

Conceptually it makes no sense.

No deal is the consequence of not being able to agree a WA.

We will need to discuss and agree some elements of the WA in any trade negiotiations after a no deal exit but not sign the WA

The backstop is irrelevant in the event of no deal for starters

We still need to divorce, even if we run screaming out of the house without making plans. The WA is the divorce agreement, not the deal. Therefore we have to sign the divorce papers in order to sort the post-divorce arrangements with trade.

But this isn’t a divorce.

We gave notice to leave with A50

If we don’t negiotiate a WA we just leave at the end of that period and that’s it.

We’ll have to agree to much of the content of WA as part of our third country trade discussions but it won’t be the current WA itself.

I’m happy to be proved wrong, but with evidence, not opinion.

I thought the same as you Bearbehind.

This article says that in the event of no deal we need to sign up to many elements of it before we can discuss trade deals.

Is IS a divorce though. We are divorcing the EU, we can't simply walk out without a backward glance and carry on as normal, or even anywhere close to it.

"We’ll have to agree to much of the content of WA as part of our third country trade discussions but it won’t be the current WA itself."

But the EU won't even engage in those discussions until we've signed the WA. That's the point.

Whatever form it takes, it WILL have the NI protection in it, which is what is stopping agreement now. Therefore, those in opposition of the backstop will never be able to avoid it, however we leave.

in the event of no deal we need to sign up to many elements of it before we can discuss trade deals.

Agreed - that’s exactly what I said above but crucially ‘signing up to many elements’ is not the same as signing up to the current WA.

It is a divorce in that we are leaving but it’s rules aren’t the same as a matrimonial divorce.

1tisleclerc replied to one of my posts with this school of thought yesterday, however, that particular thread is now full so couldn't question further - it's is somewhat bizarre and no amount of Googling that I did yesterday makes mention of it.

You surely cant have a WA negotiated on the basis of managed leave with a transition period and then be able to use the exact same document in the case of a crash out 'no deal' scenario - it's a whole different animal and cannot also be called a Withdrawal 'Agreement' because that isn't what it would be. They could of course get out a large bottle of tippex, blank out the no longer relevant aspects and call it a 'no deal document', but the exact same document for two different scenarios doesn't sound right. Sounds ripe for a stitch up where we think we've gone no deal out but no, we have signed to a managed leave

A wA of some kind will need signing if we want trade (other than on WTO) with the EU.

EU have been very clear they will not fuck over Ireland, which means a customs union of some kind will be part of any agreement.

People who think the EU can 'blink' and give us what they want don't understand the situation- the EU will not sign something based on us breaking the Good Friday agreement.

I'm totally confused by everything Brexit. We were all told no deal leaving is what happens if the wa doesn't get signed.
Not only that but recently no deal was 'legislated against'. Seems that actually has no meaning.

Whatever form it takes, it WILL have the NI protection in it, which is what is stopping agreement now. Therefore, those in opposition of the backstop will never be able to avoid it, however we leave.

Again, this makes no sense - in the event of no deal the backstop is irrelevant - we’d be out of SM/CU already so would have to have a border.

time4chocolate

I think what OP means is that after we crash out the same things in the WA will be conditions of any other trade deal?

It’s not often you and I are on the same side of a discussion time 😂

The ONLY reason the ERG haven't agreed the WA is the backstop. No dealing WON'T avoid the backstop as we will have to sign up to it before we can even START to discuss trade deals.

It's semantics to say it won't be 'this' WA when it WILL have to have the part the no dealers are trying to avoid. And THAT is the point: we cannot negotiate trade and avoid the backstop. Not possible.

Basically, if no dealers actually understood that part, they'd see that there's no benefit to no dealing as there is NO avoiding the backstop.

A wA of some kind will need signing if we want trade (other than on WTO) with the EU

An agreement of some kind will need to be signed but it won’t be the current WA as we will already have left.

And who is it who keeps calling us silly and telling us no deal CANNOT happen.

Basically, if no dealers actually understood that part, they'd see that there's no benefit to no dealing as there is NO avoiding the backstop.

But the backstop is irrelevant if we’ve already left with no deal - we’ll need to control the border from day 1

You say it doesn't make sense, but it's in the article I linked to. It is fact that we cannot avoid the backstop.

stealth I still don’t think it will actually happen because I don’t believe any PM will want to have the legacy of destroying the country.

After 3 years of Leavers not listening to anything negative about no deal though I have concluded it’s the only way to prove what the consequences will be.

And THAT is the point: we cannot negotiate trade and avoid the backstop

They (the hard liners) don't want to negotiate trade with the EU any time soon. They want to lower wage costs, employment protection and safety legislation so that the UK is competitive even with WTO tariffs.

This BBC article explains the WTO trade problems under no deal.

It really isn't as simple as crashing out and everything will work out; it's not possible.