Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Brexit

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

162 replies

Bearbehind · 27/05/2019 13:00

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?

OP posts:
TheClitterati · 27/05/2019 14:45

What I don't understand about those pushing for a no Deal Brexit, is that I cannot believe that it would be Conservative & unionists parts MP's position to put a hard border back between Ireland/Northern Ireland.

So how does that work, how can they be facilitating a no Deal Brexit when it's politically against their own policies? Not mention every other reason why A hard border is a dreadful idea.

time4chocolate · 27/05/2019 14:46

It is indeed a rare occurrence Bear 😂

StealthPolarBear · 27/05/2019 14:46

Was it you bear? Good to hear you still don't think it'll happen.
Boris says otherwise but I assume he's putting no deal back on the table as a negotiating trick.

HirplesWithHaggis · 27/05/2019 14:47

It's not quite "Sign the Withdrawal Agreement or no further negotiations", but it's not far off...

europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-19-1970_en.htm

Statement by President Juncker on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union at the European Parliament's plenary session
"The United Kingdom will be affected more than the European Union because there is no such thing as a “managed or negotiated no-deal” and there is no such thing as a “no-deal transition”.
And whatever happens, the United Kingdom will still be expected to address the three main separation issues.
Citizens' rights would still need to be upheld and protected.
The United Kingdom would still have to honour its financial commitments made as a Member State.
And thirdly, a solution would still need to be found on the island of Ireland that preserves peace and the internal market. The United Kingdom must fully respect the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
“No-deal” does not mean no commitments. And these three issues will not go away. They will be a strict condition to rebuild trust and to start talking on the way forward."

cochineal7 · 27/05/2019 14:47

I think technically you are correct that if we leave on 31 October without a deal, that means without signing the WA. Backstop also instantly irrelevant because there will be a border necessary on mainland Ireland as soon as we leave. Having said that, in practice we will be crawling back to the EU to make the same arrangements as most are much needed. Security cooperation, citizen’s rights, etc. And we would need to sign up to similar if not exactly the same terms before we can negotiate any trade deal with the EU. And possibly even outside the EU as even the US will not touch us if we f up the Good Friday Agreement. It’s madness.

NoWordForFluffy · 27/05/2019 14:47

We can't negotiate trade with anyone though as the EU is an interested party under WTO rules. And they won't negotiate until we've signed up to their conditions.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 27/05/2019 14:48

Yes fluffy but it isn’t the WA. It says:-

in the event of a no-deal outcome, the EU is prepared to set strict preconditions to any future free-trade agreement with Britain, including to some key provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, such as payments into the EU’s long-term budget through 2020 and safeguards against the recreation of a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland

The argument that the WA will not be reopened by the EU and must be signed, even in the event of no deal, is incorrect.

OP posts:
TheClitterati · 27/05/2019 14:53

I think you are correct OP.

What we are being sold as no deal doesn't actually mean we don't have any responsibilities or commitments. And as well as the trade issues the, EU could no doubt sue us if we didn't pay up and keep our obligations - like a bad debtor, and for breaching our international obligations re NI Sad

No-deal” does not mean no commitments. (From Junker)

TheClitterati · 27/05/2019 14:54

Apologies for bizarre comma placements Blush

NoWordForFluffy · 27/05/2019 14:55

Why are you so bothered if it's the WA, or something so close to it, it may as well be it (other than a no transition no deal will fuck us right up)? What's the point of the argument? Smacks of wanting to be right for the sake of it.

Rest assured, those advocating a no deal exit aren't doing so because it will benefit the country. It's because they make money from the currency markets and it benefits THEM to have the chaos a no deal with bring. Jacob Rees Mogg is rumoured to have made around £5 MILLION already cause by the uncertainty which he has helped to create in the money markets. Kind of insider trading for MPs really.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 27/05/2019 14:59

What's the point of the argument? Smacks of wanting to be right for the sake of it.

Nonsense - it is the WA that is the problem

OP posts:
StealthPolarBear · 27/05/2019 15:02

Some of us would like the endless contradictions to go away

1tisILeClerc · 27/05/2019 15:12

{it is the WA that is the problem}
THE WA is essentially a list of items as I have said repeatedly. The EU have no intention of rewriting it and they can't be forced to do so by the UK. It is a 'take it or leave it' scenario.
Anyone contemplating the UK trading worldwide and omitting everything that has a connection through or with the EU it truly insane.
And that would be before the EU taking any form of retaliatory action.

Gronky · 27/05/2019 15:14

Anyone contemplating the UK trading worldwide and omitting everything that has a connection through or with the EU it truly insane.

The UK would also trade with the EU under WTO rules. This is the purpose of the WTO, to facilitate trade without direct agreements being reached.

MockerstheFeManist · 27/05/2019 15:31

The point was well-made by Rory Stewart on R4 yesterday: "No Deal" is not a thing. It is leave without a deal then negotiate the deal.

1tisILeClerc · 27/05/2019 15:32

And to free itself of the existing trading agreements that the UK has through the EU, It will have to negotiate with the EU which they won't do until the WA is signed as the UK is in many cases involved in quotas which would need to be redistributed.

1tisILeClerc · 27/05/2019 15:34

MockerstheFeManist
Although a X post, I have just said what the situation would be.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 27/05/2019 15:34

I just don’t think it is helpful for people to be saying we have to sign the WA whatever happens.

It is toxic.

And our politicians and much of the public could probably stomach the entire WA as long as it wasn’t called that.

OP posts:
1tisILeClerc · 27/05/2019 15:35

In a nutshell, the UK has handed the EU it's 'short and curlies' and they (we) have a firm grip.

1tisILeClerc · 27/05/2019 15:37

{And our politicians and much of the public could probably stomach the entire WA as long as it wasn’t called that.}
Since it appears most of the 'public' seem to think the WA is a 'deal' you can call it a pink rabbit if you like, they still have no clue what it is or what the implications are.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 27/05/2019 15:38

It will have to negotiate with the EU which they won't do until the WA is signed as the UK is in many cases involved in quotas which would need to be redistributed.

1tis that is simply not true.

Under no deal we’d need to negotiate our new terms but it would not require the WA, which the EU won’t reopen, to be signed.

It would require its contents to be factored into the new negotiations.

OP posts:
1tisILeClerc · 27/05/2019 15:40

If the politicians and MSM weren't continually lying and explained that a 'no deal' is essentially 'project fear on steroids' that will seriously impact over 99% of the UK (and EU) population things might go a bit more smoothly.

Gronky · 27/05/2019 15:40

Since it appears most of the 'public' seem to think the WA is a 'deal'

It is a deal and it's one which, unlike how EU membership can be revoked through Article 50, could only be moved away from by reaching a subsequent arrangement with the EU or completely tearing up the treaty. It's an absolute gin trap in its current form.

1tisILeClerc · 27/05/2019 15:48

Bearbehind
You are being particularly perverse.
Trading through WTO rules requires all interested parties to be involved.
The EU is involved in much of the UK's trade.
The EU will not enter negotiations on trade until the WA is ratified.

Therefore the EU has a stranglehold, one way or another, either now or eventually.
Leaving the EU without the backstop for NI will incur the displeasure of Irish Americans who will seek to block UK/USA trade deals.

Tanith · 27/05/2019 15:49

I thought Nancy Pelosi had already said that the US will not trade with us if we mess about with the GFA. That means the backstop, does it not?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47979214

Swipe left for the next trending thread