The Deal

October 21, 2019 Longrider General News, Political 14

So, the Boris has returned with a deal. Well… Maybe… This looks awfully familiar.

So far as we are aware the only material changes in the Withdrawal Agreement (Treaty) are to the NI Protocol, which means that the critical ECJ oversight and Art 184 link to the Political Declaration remain. I am told by UKREP that there are two changes to other Articles in the Treaty but they were unable to tell us which ones.

So, in essence, Theresa May’s deal with a bit of tweaking regarding the Irish border. So, a shitty deal then.

The remainers don’t like it because they fear things like workers’ rights. However, as I understand it, the great repeal act of 2018 has already codified such rights into domestic law, so not an issue.

Leavers don’t like it because of such things as this:

Just as before, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) governs the entire Treaty and EU law takes precedence – binding future British Parliaments and requiring judges to overturn laws passed by the British Parliament if the ECJ considers them to be inconsistent with obligations in the Treaty. (Articles 4, 87, 89 and 127).

Or this:

The Political Declaration still obliges the UK to adopt a future relationship which will impose EU State Aid rules and “relevant tax matters” on the UK (para 77), the EU specifically intends to curb the UK’s ability to have “harmful tax practices“, the Withdrawal Treaty also applies EU law to the UK during the transition period (Article 127) – allowing the EU to sue the UK, including infringement proceedings for: as yet unidentified breaches of State Aid rules (which can take the form of tax exemptions); and billions in unpaid VAT on commodity derivative transactions dating back to the 1970s (Articles 86 and 93).

Or this:

The Treaty permanently restricts the UK’s sovereignty by preventing the UK from taking “any action likely to conflict with or impede” EU foreign policy (Article 129(6)). It is instructive that this contrasts with almost all the other sub-sections of Article 129 – each of which include language limiting them to the duration of the transition period.

It is also very revealing in the Political Declaration that critical parts of the section on foreign policy and security are not reciprocal. For example, para 99 confirms that the future relationship will not “prejudice the decision-making autonomy of the EU” but no such language is afforded to the UK – we are merely permitted to “maintain the right to determine how [to respond] to any invitation to participate in operations or missions“.

Additionally, in the Political Declaration the parties “agree to consider” security collaboration in the European Defence Agency, the European Defence Fund and PESCO “to the extent possible under [EU law]” (para 102(c)) which is a prescriptive obligation and not merely a permissive option. Despite making payments to the European Defence Agency during the transition period, British troops in EU battlegroups will not be led by British staff officers (Articles 129(7) and 156-157).

Or this:

The UK is permitted to send a civil servant to Brussels to observe the EU passing laws designed to disadvantage our economy during the transition (which might last many years) (Article 34). For example, the EU is discussing regulating London’s huge Foreign Exchange Markets and also imposing a financial transaction tax that would be collected at our expense by HMRC but sent to foreign governments.

I have only picked up a few snippets from the Bruges Group briefing here – read the whole thing. It will chill the blood. This is BRINO. It is not leaving the EU. It is a terrible deal. It is a surrender document.

Why would anyone accept this?

14 Comments

  3. For once I disagree. I think it is a baby step out of the EU with many more needed, but a start. I think that the main difference between the previous WA and this one is that the next step would now be under our control , where as with the old one the next step was under the EU control. Whatever happens it’s imperative that we elect a leaver parliament in the next GE, to either take more steps out or to leave with no deal if still in, depending where we are when it happens.

    We need to be sure we don’t rely on manifesto commitments, we need to know the voting history of who is standing or if in doubt vote for the brexit party.

  4. At least it’s now clear that Johnson’s initial “conversion” from Remain to Leave was bogus and that his ousting of May was due to personal ambition and/or animosity rather than a disagreement about the future of the country.

  5. Which is exactly why I want a No deal/WTO exit. This is a surrender document and these tossers in the ERG are lapping it up. Boris is relying on everyone being fed up and lack of detailed scrutiny. It is a shitty deal. Maybe Letwin isn’t the onanist I thought he was?

  6. All the things you quote are during the transition period only, ie to the end of next year. During that period the political declaration states the parties will attempt to negotiate a free trade agreement, with none of the above in it.

    The whole Boris deal basically puts the clock back 3 years, and installs Boris in the big chair to negotiate the free trade deal, as Theresa May f*cked it up royally since 2016. If Boris deal passes he’ll be in the same position TM was – the EU still controls a lot during the negotiations (as it did during the A50 period, and still does today), only he’s made it entirely clear he wants the UK to have control of its own laws, its own trade, to be out from under the ECJ etc etc. Whereas TM’s political declaration stated that she wanted the UK to be as closely aligned to the EU as possible.

    The Boris Deal is not a deal at all really, its the framework to negotiate the ‘Real Deal’. And the difference between the TM deal and the Boris deal is a) the occupant of No 10 and their stated aims, and b) no backstop, so all Boris’s free trade negotiations with the EU will have the unwritten addendum ‘We can walk away from this you know with No Deal’ attached to them. Just as TM should have said to the EU on day 1.

    I trust Boris (and Cummings) to get us a proper free trade deal that allows the UK to be an independent sovereign State again. TM (plus Hammond and Robbins) would have sold us into being an EU vassal State.

    You can thank Micheal Gove for all this – but for his treachery Boris would have been in No 10 in 2016 and we’d have been free and clear of the EU over a year ago. Thanks Gove, you c**t.

  7. I fear that the next Proms will be the first where “Rule Britannia” will either not be allowed to be played, or the “Britons never, never, never, shall be slaves” chorus will be omitted as no longer relevant.
    Meanwhile, browsing through eBay for piano wire and old lampposts.

  8. I want a No deal WTO exit. The wreckers in parliament will wreck this treaty anyway so it will never get through. Clock is ticking. If BoJo doesn’t accept any extension on 31st we will leave with No Deal, but the remainer rabble will no doubt try to nobble that.

    • Bojo won his ‘deal’ vote but the legislation hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of being approved before the 31st, so that’s a WTO terms BREXIT, surely? Or am I being unrealistically optimistic?

Comments are closed.