3 ms·

Article 50 exists. The UK can leave on WTO terms and the EU cannot stop it. The EU has some incentives (money) to give the UK some other deal than WTO terms,

Article 50 exists. The UK can leave on WTO terms and the EU cannot stop it. The EU has some incentives (money) to give the UK some other deal than WTO terms, and it has some incentives (avoiding a rush to the exits) to give the UK nothing more than WTO terms. As it happens the UK is wealthier than other EU countries that might head for the exits if they thought they could get as good a deal as the UK, but no one thinks that Poland can get the same terms as the UK, so fear of a rush to exit is not a reason to give the UK nothing. It's not at all clear that May tried to get a better deal than the one she presented to Parliament -- the brexiteers in her previous cabinet were sidelined and ignored, and no attempt was made to make clear that the EU would not yield (if that was the problem).

ed_elliott_asc 8y ago
The brexiteers weren’t sidelined, they were given foreign office and dept for brexit, they were just useless and incompetent
- spuz 8y ago
  Honestly, I don't think "useless and incompetence" is a relevant criticism of those who were put in charge of the negotiations. Even a team 100 times more competent than May's would still run into the same hard issues.
notahacker 8y ago
Anybody that has made even the slightest attempt to follow events knows that May tried alternative attempts to get a deal (including a framework signed off by all the Brexiters in her Cabinet) and the EU repeatedly rejected them. Anybody that has a solid grasp of the facts knows that the issue is not that the EU "offered the UK nothing" but that the Irish government will veto any agreement which implies the creation of a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and May's critics are equally adamant that the UK, including NI, must have a different customs regime from the ROI. It's not an issue of give and take, it's a matter of mutually incompatible red lines.
- incompatible 8y ago
  It will be interesting to see what happens to the Irish border if the no-deal exit takes place. Will the EU demand a customs border, but Ireland resist it?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    I suspect not immediately, but smuggling and carousel fraud will start to increase and force the issue.
- tim333 8y ago
  If May wasn't in a coalition with the DUP then N Ireland could have remained in customs union with the EU as it is now and the mainland could have gone Canada+. Not really happening at the moment though.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Agree that the issue would have had a lot less salience if the government and media were largely free to ignore the DUP and Northern Ireland in general, though I imagine those ERG Brexiters who seem to want to find any excuse not to have a deal could have still made it a sticking point. And tbf, the unionists probably have as legitimate a point that a separate customs regime violates their idea of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement as the republicans, though a customs border at [air]ports is obviously less disruptive than one between socially and economically integrated regions on the Irish mainland.
    - tim333 8y ago
      I had a look at wikipedia on the Good Friday Agreement and it doesn't seem to say much about trade and customs. Already NI has some different laws to the mainland (gay marriage) and some trade restrictions (cattle). If brexit just "violates their idea of the spirit of"... then I think we can maybe live with that.
benmmurphy 8y ago
The way May approached negotiations with the EU was from a position of weakness and was doomed to fail. I wonder how much of her approach was a result of political constraints or how much of it was a result of incompetence or deliberate sabotage by her or the bureaucracy. 1) She should have made deals or conditional deals with other trading partners before submitting Article 50. This way she would have had a good BATNA option in the case negotiation with the EU failed. The EU may have been more reasonable if they realised the UK had less to lose from a failed negotiation. Of course there were problems with this approach. Firstly, it might not have been politically possible for her to delay submitting Article 50. Secondly, if you are in the EU you are not meant to negotiate trade deals with other countries. However, there is no reason for the EU to find out and I guess more importantly the EU has no real way to credibly punish the UK for that action if the UK alternative was just to submit Article 50 straight away. 2) She should have tried to get assurances from other countries in the Council to negotiate good trading terms before submitting Article 50. Yes. This is not how the EU works and the Commission is probably more likely to act in a way that hurts EU citizens but benefits the EU as an institution and unfortunately they are the ones in control of the text of such agreements. But if there was strong pressure from the Council then the Commission would look bad if they scuttled a free trade deal that looked to benefit all parties. Free trade is meant to be good for both parties [There seems to be strong consensus from economists on this point!]. So assuming both parties are acting in good faith with their citizens welfare as a priority then surely the outcome of negotiations should be a good trade deal.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  It has been suggested that the conference speech where May (chasing a soundbite) said that the UK would not agree to a deal that involved the UK being subject to the ECJ a) was never shared with her cabinet b) May didn't realise at the time that this meant, by extension, leaving the Single Market and customs union. In another era it would be hard to imagine policy being formed by pure accident...but I am beginning to believe that this may be true
dubbel 8y ago
But the current main issue isn't even strictly about money, but the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is not only an economic question, on which a compromise could probably be found, but one with hundreds of years of political, religious and cultural baggage.
Tomte 8y ago
"WTO terms" aren't what you think they are. They aren't a fully-developed agreement between nations to trade. They are basicslly just a framework. You still need to negotiate with each other. For example, the other country will want papers with your goods. Which forms needs to be filled out? With which information? The WTO doesn't regulate that. You still need to agree on all the technicalities. You only get some limit on tariffs for free, basically.
- makomk 8y ago
  The WTO doesn't just limit tariffs, they also restrict what kinds of non-tariff barriers to trade are possible. In very broad terms, countries may still set their own standards for goods sold there (unlike in the EU), but they must enforce those standards fairly and equally against both local and foreign goods. There's some exemptions for stuff like sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on animal, plant and food imports, and these will almost certainly cause major problems if Brexit happens, but the WTO certainly isn't just about tariffs. This is one of the big problems I have with the reporting on Brexit, actually. The press not only left widespread misunderstandings like this about the WTO unchallenged, when a politician did finally push back against this all the publications that'd remained silent insisted he was the one pushing dangerous misinformation because people might misunderstand and think the WTO solved everything.

ed_elliott_asc 8y ago

The brexiteers weren’t sidelined, they were given foreign office and dept for brexit, they were just useless and incompetent

spuz 8y ago
Honestly, I don't think "useless and incompetence" is a relevant criticism of those who were put in charge of the negotiations. Even a team 100 times more competent than May's would still run into the same hard issues.

notahacker 8y ago

Anybody that has made even the slightest attempt to follow events knows that May tried alternative attempts to get a deal (including a framework signed off by all the Brexiters in her Cabinet) and the EU repeatedly rejected them. Anybody that has a solid grasp of the facts knows that the issue is not that the EU "offered the UK nothing" but that the Irish government will veto any agreement which implies the creation of a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and May's critics are equally adamant that the UK, including NI, must have a different customs regime from the ROI. It's not an issue of give and take, it's a matter of mutually incompatible red lines.

incompatible 8y ago
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Irish border if the no-deal exit takes place. Will the EU demand a customs border, but Ireland resist it?
- pjc50 8y ago
  I suspect not immediately, but smuggling and carousel fraud will start to increase and force the issue.
tim333 8y ago
If May wasn't in a coalition with the DUP then N Ireland could have remained in customs union with the EU as it is now and the mainland could have gone Canada+. Not really happening at the moment though.
- notahacker 8y ago
  Agree that the issue would have had a lot less salience if the government and media were largely free to ignore the DUP and Northern Ireland in general, though I imagine those ERG Brexiters who seem to want to find any excuse not to have a deal could have still made it a sticking point. And tbf, the unionists probably have as legitimate a point that a separate customs regime violates their idea of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement as the republicans, though a customs border at [air]ports is obviously less disruptive than one between socially and economically integrated regions on the Irish mainland.
  - tim333 8y ago
    I had a look at wikipedia on the Good Friday Agreement and it doesn't seem to say much about trade and customs. Already NI has some different laws to the mainland (gay marriage) and some trade restrictions (cattle). If brexit just "violates their idea of the spirit of"... then I think we can maybe live with that.

benmmurphy 8y ago

The way May approached negotiations with the EU was from a position of weakness and was doomed to fail. I wonder how much of her approach was a result of political constraints or how much of it was a result of incompetence or deliberate sabotage by her or the bureaucracy. 1) She should have made deals or conditional deals with other trading partners before submitting Article 50. This way she would have had a good BATNA option in the case negotiation with the EU failed. The EU may have been more reasonable if they realised the UK had less to lose from a failed negotiation. Of course there were problems with this approach. Firstly, it might not have been politically possible for her to delay submitting Article 50. Secondly, if you are in the EU you are not meant to negotiate trade deals with other countries. However, there is no reason for the EU to find out and I guess more importantly the EU has no real way to credibly punish the UK for that action if the UK alternative was just to submit Article 50 straight away. 2) She should have tried to get assurances from other countries in the Council to negotiate good trading terms before submitting Article 50. Yes. This is not how the EU works and the Commission is probably more likely to act in a way that hurts EU citizens but benefits the EU as an institution and unfortunately they are the ones in control of the text of such agreements. But if there was strong pressure from the Council then the Commission would look bad if they scuttled a free trade deal that looked to benefit all parties. Free trade is meant to be good for both parties [There seems to be strong consensus from economists on this point!]. So assuming both parties are acting in good faith with their citizens welfare as a priority then surely the outcome of negotiations should be a good trade deal.

jimnotgym 8y ago
It has been suggested that the conference speech where May (chasing a soundbite) said that the UK would not agree to a deal that involved the UK being subject to the ECJ a) was never shared with her cabinet b) May didn't realise at the time that this meant, by extension, leaving the Single Market and customs union. In another era it would be hard to imagine policy being formed by pure accident...but I am beginning to believe that this may be true

dubbel 8y ago

But the current main issue isn't even strictly about money, but the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is not only an economic question, on which a compromise could probably be found, but one with hundreds of years of political, religious and cultural baggage.

Tomte 8y ago

"WTO terms" aren't what you think they are. They aren't a fully-developed agreement between nations to trade. They are basicslly just a framework. You still need to negotiate with each other. For example, the other country will want papers with your goods. Which forms needs to be filled out? With which information? The WTO doesn't regulate that. You still need to agree on all the technicalities. You only get some limit on tariffs for free, basically.

makomk 8y ago
The WTO doesn't just limit tariffs, they also restrict what kinds of non-tariff barriers to trade are possible. In very broad terms, countries may still set their own standards for goods sold there (unlike in the EU), but they must enforce those standards fairly and equally against both local and foreign goods. There's some exemptions for stuff like sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on animal, plant and food imports, and these will almost certainly cause major problems if Brexit happens, but the WTO certainly isn't just about tariffs. This is one of the big problems I have with the reporting on Brexit, actually. The press not only left widespread misunderstandings like this about the WTO unchallenged, when a politician did finally push back against this all the publications that'd remained silent insisted he was the one pushing dangerous misinformation because people might misunderstand and think the WTO solved everything.