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?

ello have you read any of my posts?

I have absolutely no idea as I don’t believe it will happen.

But the more people insist things which are untrue are actually facts, the more likely it becomes.

And I still have no idea how it will look.

I don't hear scare mongering. I hear people trying to explain process to folk who don't understand there is a process.

I’m beginning to think I’m speaking a different language here.

Please explain where in ‘the process’ it explicitly states the current WA must be signed under no deal negiotiations.

No deal doesn’t involve any negotiations. So what does that look like? There’s no deal. The U.K. leaves the EU. What does it look like, how does it work? I don’t care whether you’re a Remainer or a Leaver, you must have a view because you’re posting about it. So tell us, what happens?

ello, please just give it up.

I have no idea what no deal looks like because, despite thinking it’s the only way to prove to Leavers that Leaving makes us worse off, I don’t believe it will ever happen.

I certainly have no idea what day 1 would look like.

You can believe it won’t happen while also having an understanding of what it would involve if it were to happen. The only alternatives are that you don’t have an understanding of that, or you do but you don’t want to state it. Which is it?

ello, I’m the nicest possible way please feck off.

Why should I have a detailed view on how something that I don’t think will happen, will happen?

I think there is confusion here between the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and the Political Declaration (PD).
The WA sets out terms on which we leave the eu. The eu has said many times the WA is non negotiable. These terms include the backstop which has been the main reason why the WA has not been passed by Parliament.
The PD includes negotiations about many things, perhaps most importantly, trade deals with the eu. The eu will only begin to discuss trade deals, or anything else, after the WA is signed.
Therefore we can leave without a deal, refuse to sign the WA and become international pariahs.
If we want to make any future deals with the eu we have to sign the WA before negotiating whatever manner we leave in.

You started a thread in which you said in the first post :

“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.”

Ok so let’s consider that. Why would there be a school of thought that says we would have to sign up to the WA even after we Brexited with no deal? What would happen when we Brexited with no deal which would make us end up signing up to the WA after all?

The school of thought was that touted by 1tisleclerc

No one else - I was attempting diplomacy.

I disagreed with this on another thread so started this to gauge opinion.

And your thread title asks whether the U.K. would have to sign the WA in the event of a no deal Brexit. My questions are designed to draw out and assist your thinking on this matter. Let’s consider. What would happen if the U.K. left the EU with no deal? How might that help to answer your questions?

Ok let’s gauge opinion. Starting with you.

Wow, I think some people are spectacularly missing the point of the OP.

If we want to make any future deals with the eu we have to sign the WA before negotiating whatever manner we leave in.

As I’ve asked others, please cite your source for concluding we have to sign the current WA.

I think in the unlikely scenario that the UK government allows 'no deal' to happen, either by sheer incompetence or by design, then the current WA in its present form will remain the template for future discussions.

That's me getting splinters in my arse

And your thread title asks whether the U.K. would have to sign the WA in the event of a no deal Brexit

So is the answer yes or no?

The reason Teresa May didn’t get the WA signed is because deluded ministers, particularly the ERG, kept sending her back to the eu to renegotiate the backstop. The eu made it clear they were never going to do that.
The backstop is essential because, once UK leaves the eu without a deal, there would no longer be a common customs agreement between NI and Ireland.
The backstop is essential to keep the peace in Ireland.
Ireland is a member of the eu. They weren’t going to go against the Good Friday Agreement, an international peace treaty, just to suit the UK which was leaving the eu.

You tell me, time4.

Ireland is a member of the eu. They weren’t going to go against the Good Friday Agreement, an international peace treaty, just to suit the UK which was leaving the eu.

But if we leave with no deal we breach the GFA so then what?

The reason I think this is, the template is there, it has taken blood (paper cuts ?), sweat and tears to produce. Seriously, two and a half years to produce a workable document and can anyone honestly think they are going to just bin the lot ? The EU has its own red lines don't forget.

You tell me, time4

Its a ‘No’ from me and I have said as much way up thread.

The EU has its own red lines don't forget.

How very dare they.

Yes ultimately if the UK wants to enter trade discussions with the EU then the EU are insisting that they sign up to the WA.
The WA consisting of citizens rights, the exit bill, and the backstop for Ireland, plus a long list of conditions that if the UK is leaving will subsequently be negotiated as part of the PD. The WA defines the legal basis and scope of the treaties, the PD defines which of the treaties and when the changes are enacted.
Arguing over the name 'WA' and 'demanding' that it is changed somehow is rather a poor way to continue as the contents will not change and it is the continual 'dancing around the issue' and not calling a WA a WA that is holding up proceedings.
Maybe if the HoC had read and understood the WA from when it was published it would have been better. It was plainly obvious that even after the first attempt to pass it through the HoC, only a few had bothered to try to understand it, as the PMQs showed by the innane questions that were being asked that few had really understood it.
There are of course some in cabinet and back benches who have willfully misrepresented what it says, such as the ERG, who were desperate to get 'leave' over and done because their money making enterprises depend on the UK leaving.

1tis could you explain how anyone would be able to convince MPs who’d condoned no deal (if it ever happened) to support the very same WA they wouldn’t vote for before.

It’s utter bollocks.

{But if we leave with no deal we breach the GFA so then what?}

Condemnation by many countries that the UK would hope to do deals with.
The USA will take a very poor view and likely block or delay any trade deals. This was mentioned earlier but was 'poo pooed' but it is not a situation to be risking if you are also cutting ties with the EU at the same time.