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?

{ It's an absolute gin trap in its current form.}
Well maybe the UK should have negotiated properly perhaps?

1tis I’m not being perverse. I’m making the point that there is a very clear distinction between

• the WA which the EU will not reopen

And

• Negotiations in the event of no deal which cover the areas included in the current WA

THE WA is essentially a list of items as I have said repeatedly - yes I know you have said it repeatedly and you have also repeatedly said this in your usual charming manner (from yesterday)

You are obviously having difficulty with this, which is not unique so I am not singling you out.
THE WA WILL BE SIGNED before the EU does any deal or no deal with the EU

So 'The' WA has been legally drafted to an extent that they have managed to cover off two different scenarios in the same document. I don't think so.

If we choose the 'leave it' option then it's WTO terms until such time as an new deal trade has been legally drafted between EU and U.K. and will not be 'The' WA, that would have expired.

I believe you are correct OP. This is my understanding (sorry, can’t evidence, just what I’ve understood from talks and interviews):

In the event of no deal, the WA falls away and the A50 notifies the departure.

Thereafter - and we are talking almost simultaneously I expect - should (!) the UK want to trade with the EU, a trading arrangement would have to be agreed. I don’t know the procedure with non EU states although I remember saying there were several agreed and just waiting for our obligations to EU to fall away before they could be signed.

"A list of the trade and mutual recognition agreements the UK has signed with non-EU countries.^"

"The agreements can take effect if the UK leaves the EU without a deal."

www.gov.uk/guidance/signed-uk-trade-agreements-transitioned-from-the-eu

Since when does the WA have an 'expiry date'?
The EU are not going to bother rewriting it.
If the UK chooses to leave with no deal, then the EU are happy to wait until the PM comes back and asks for negotiations, at which point the EU will point to the WA on the table and simply say, 'sign that first'.
So you obviously want to be pedantic about it but the outcome is pretty similar. The main point of saying it is that many in the UK are so deluded that they think the unicorns and great deals are on the way. They truly aren't. What is more important for the UK is that so far it is hemorrhaging money like it is going out of fashion but there is no attempt by the government to start to resolve any of the issues that are behind Brexit. Cameron's attempt to sort out the Tory party is seeing it split like never before.

{ repeatedly said this in your usual charming manner}
Time I stop bothering me thinks.

Like with so many things involving Brexit, the answer is "everyone is correct"!

However, the WA contains a number of distinct components. If we leave on no deal, then clearly the transitional provisions of the WA will no longer be relevant.

On the other hand, if we want to do a deal with the EU in the future, which the Brexiteers want, ie, a free trade agreement like Canada, then the EU will certainly want our agreement of the WA which cover : money ie how much the UK owes the EU and vice versa, ownership of assets, status of Gibraltar and Cyprus, pension rights of EU civil servants of UK nationality ... .

Of course any new free trade agreement would have to meet the obligations on the UK and Rep of Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement. This would mean that the back stop in the WA would no longer be relevant as the UK would be looking to implement a free trade agreement, although my any such new agreement would have to comply with the "no new borders" principle, which the UK and EU would undoubtedly have sought to protect. Even in the event of a no deal!

In practice, no deal would be the situation on the day we leave, but very shortly thereafter, a whole series of other bilateral agreements would need to be pushed through in order to prevent chaos turning in to real economic damage ( for both sides). So on this basis , no deal = a state of mind, rather than a statement of act!

Time I stop bothering me thinks

Whilst you are knowingly misinforming people, that’s perhaps best.

There’s not a single person who agrees with you that the WA will need to be signed in the event of no deal.

The thing is clerc you are just so sneery in your approach and hardly anyone wants to listen to you. You post as if you yourself represent the entirety of the whole EU and that your opinion represents fact. You seem to get a kick out of 'giving it to the Brits' despite the fact nearly 50% voted to Remain.

On one hand you paint a picture of a purely benevolent EU who are nothing but polite and generous in all of their dealings with the UK and then on the other hand you say things like "we've got you by the short and curlies".

So maybe, you're right, you should stop bothering.

The idea that we have to sign the WA is just another remainers tactic to keep us in the EU. It makes zero sense to sign a new EU treaty to keep us in the EU by the backdoor and then pretend we have left. Did remainers learn nothing from the election results last night.

When we leave the EU we will leave properly otherwise Nigel will be PM at the next election.

Can you just imagine us trying to do a trade deal with America and the president saying, "sorry the EU says you cant do a deal with us because you didn't sign a WA with them". roflmao remainers and their unicorns.

{You seem to get a kick out of 'giving it to the Brits' despite the fact nearly 50% voted to Remain.}
I am a 'Brit' who is totally embarrassed by the lies and crap that the 'leave' and 'Brexiteers' are continuing to spout. While some of what I say may not be strictly accurate it is significantly more in line with reality than what the Brexiteers are coming up with.
I want the cuddly unicorn that the 'Leave' parties were promising but there is no sign of that.

{There’s not a single person who agrees with you that the WA will need to be signed in the event of no deal.}
That remains to be seen.

Walkingdeadfangirl Delusiongirl more like, but have it your way and enjoy 'Farage no policy' when he is PM.

I am a 'Brit' who is totally embarrassed by the lies and crap that the 'leave' and 'Brexiteers' are continuing to spout.

Like the EU starving Britain out of a no deal (not just a disruption, literally preventing all food from being shipped into the country)?

Can you just imagine us trying to do a trade deal with America and the president saying, "sorry the EU says you cant do a deal with us because you didn't sign a WA with them". roflmao remainers and their unicorns.

Isn’t that the message that the US have been trying to give us?

Isn’t that the message that the US have been trying to give us?

The speaker of the House of Representatives (Pelosi) made certain claims with regards to Good Friday Agreement being broken, which doesn't mean the WA in its current form has to be accepted and, even if she went all out and demanded that WA (or any other specific terms) had to be accepted by the UK before US negotiations open up, The President could easily bypass her with his Trade Preferences Act authority, sending any proposed agreement directly to a majority Republican Congress, who would likely be inclined to approve, given that they're majority Republican and would use it as an easy political points scoring win.

{Like the EU starving Britain out of a no deal (not just a disruption, literally preventing all food from being shipped into the country)?}

With no insurance, certifications and a host of other agreements, ripping up the treaties listed in the WA puts a bit of a dampener on imports for a while. This is what BoJo is proposing, not me.

{The President could easily bypass her with his Trade Preferences Act authority}
Maybe, but have you considered the cost of importing everything from the USA, that is assuming they have surplus that could be sent to the UK. How does this figure in reducing global climate change?

With no insurance, certifications and a host of other agreements, ripping up the treaties listed in the WA puts a bit of a dampener on imports for a while.

Please specify which type of insurance you are talking about. Certifications and other agreements are less of an issue because the Food Standards Agency exists which requires no reciprocity on the part of the EC.

Maybe, but have you considered the cost of importing everything from the USA

Why does 'everything' have to be imported from the US?

Maybe, but have you considered the cost of importing everything from the USA
And yet we import a lot of stuff from all over the world, including fresh food. The cost doesn't seem prohibitive, in fact in many cases its cheaper.

Gronky
Just the boring stuff like the insurance that covers the ferries and aeroplanes, The licencing of pilots, air and sea worthiness, the permits for road transport, all the little details that make life happen.

{Why does 'everything' have to be imported from the US?}
It depends how much 'Leave' means 'Leave' really. By all accounts the UK wants to abandon the EU altogether.
If you are not going to trade with the EU, then who will you trade with? Where is nearest? Which countries other than the EU have a surplus that can be bought in at short notice?

Just the boring stuff like the insurance that covers the ferries and aeroplanes

There are already (right at this moment, in fact) planes and ships traveling between the UK and non-EU countries. These frameworks exist.

By all accounts the UK wants to abandon the EU altogether. If you are not going to trade with the EU, then who will you trade with?

This is a complete strawman. You're moving the goalposts from the EU stopping trade with the UK to the UK stopping trade with the EU.

There’s not a single person who agrees with you that the WA will need to be signed in the event of no deal.

That remains to be seen.

No it doesn’t - you are literally the only person peddling this story.

I’ve probably argued with every single Leave voter who has posted on this thread but I’m in agreement with them over this.

The WA goes out of the window in the event of no deal and does not need to be signed.

It’s contents become the discussion of the negiotiations about our future arrangements but the EU will not just insist the original WA is signed before those discussions take place.

Which is crucially different to what you are claiming because there is a stigma attached to this WA which changes (albeit with minimal actual effect) if the UK can say it has been renegotiated.

{There are already (right at this moment, in fact) planes and ships traveling between the UK and non-EU countries. These frameworks exist.}
Yes, because the UK has not left yet. If it leaves with no deal, then those frameworks disappear overnight, literally.

{Which is crucially different to what you are claiming because there is a stigma attached to this WA which changes (albeit with minimal actual effect) if the UK can say it has been renegotiated.}
Theresa went many times to Brussels and presented the WA 3/4 times to the HoC and it has been rejected but not changed in any substance. If it COULD have been changed, it would have been. For many in the HoC, the WA itself is OK, but as the backstop is part of it they rejected it because it tied the border in Ireland into it, or at least the fact there must be no visible border.

No, it’s not just Pelosi, she was late to that particular party and it’s coming from both parties. Don’t bother looking to the Republicans to get us out of this particular mess.