Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

UK PM Johnson agrees 'great' new Brexit deal with EU

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tebee said:

You can believe that if you want to delude yourself.

 

But ask yourself this - this deal needs to be approved by all 27 member states.

So how come they can all agree to this so quickly - because it's essentially identical to a deal already offered and agreed.

 

If you think this is a new deal, what do you think the differences are between this and the first draft of the withdrawal agreement offered to TM in december 2017? 

The differences are significant. The biggest one is, in my opinion, not the removal of the backstop (which is fantastic), but the abolishment of any references to EU law and other international conventions which in May's deal had precedence over UK law. There there's this, as commented in the Belfast Telegraph:

 

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/explainer-whats-the-difference-between-johnsons-brexit-deal-and-mays-deal-38610304.html

 

Sections 3 & 4 in the revised Political Declaration:

Quote

3. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. Where the Parties consider it to be in their mutual interest during the negotiations, the future relationship may encompass areas of cooperation beyond those described in this political declaration. This relationship will be rooted in the values and interests that the Union and the United Kingdom share. These arise from their geography, history and ideals anchored in their common European heritage. The Union and the United Kingdom agree that prosperity and security are enhanced by embracing free and fair trade, defending individual rights and the rule of law, protecting workers, consumers and the environment, and standing together against threats to rights and values from without or within.

 

4. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union's decision making and be consistent with the Union's principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy

 

I think this is probably the best we'll ever get. The only other option as I see it is a No Deal or complete political mayhem.

 

 

What about the level playing field?

Annex 4 of the previous Protocol – which contained references to EU laws and international conventions that would apply to the whole of UK in what were called “level playing field” commitments – has now been removed.

According to the House of Commons library report: “These were put in by the EU to limit the UK’s capacity to gain what it would see as an unfair advantage by lowering standards.

“This was of particular concern due to the UK’s close geographical proximity to the EU, but also in the previous ‘backstop’ the UK would have been in a Single Customs Territory with the EU, and so the EU wouldn’t be able to use tariffs to compensate for competitive advantage.”

Edited by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sanemax said:

Of Course Corbyn will vote against it . hes the rebellions type that will always vote against Government proposals .

  Hes not the intelligent type to sit and discuss things and vote after thinking it through .

  Hes the type to stand there with his arms crossed and his fingers in his ears and shaking his head saying "I disagree and will vote against it" , whatevers on offer .

Is it a deal or mays regurgitated scheme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kingdong said:

Bad for workers rights? Do they have any in the age of bogus self employment,zero hour contracts and the glut of migrant labour courtesy of freedom of movement?

 

dunno,

that is what came out of the radio

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All Johnson has to do is say he lied when he said he will not negotiate an extension, put it down as Johnson as usual.

The plan is for him to send the letter as required but will refuse to negotiate with the EU regarding the extension.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All Johnson has to do is say he lied when he said he will not negotiate an extension, put it down as Johnson as usual.

Interventions in HOC asking to the speaker for measures to make him comply with the law …..

(watching further live  (better than coronation street and promises also to take long ….)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

The plan is for him to send the letter as required but will refuse to negotiate with the EU regarding the extension.

 

2019-10-19_212756.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes please. Get it done, preferably with the deal.

No, no, no.... Boris and his Tories need some more humiliations first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO ALLOW THE DEFEND BREXIT CASE TO HAVE A HEARING

 
Above are the images of the Order that I have just received, which disappointingly confirms that our case is not going to be allowed to have even a single hearing. (Apologies for the way it has reproduced on this blog!)
 
The tone of the reasons for the Order is more reasonable than the previous two Orders that we have had in this case. I do however find it interesting that this Judge has come out with yet another set of inconsistent reasoning as to why our case would not succeed.  In my view, as we have now had three different Judges, all of whom have given a different basis on which they are refusing the case.  Speaker Bercow had a yet further different view.  Between them they have vividly shown why this is a case that should have actually been properly heard.  Proper legal argument should have been listened to, so that the Court could have come to a proper reasoned decision.  That would have been the way that a Judicial Review decision would have been dealt with until very recently. 

Tilbrook latest 

Miller/Benn/Letwin get wall to wall coverage. This parallel case laughably gets 'White Supremacist'; having already been blackballed by (re)mainstream media.

UK politics of late is an absolute disgrace.

Edited by evadgib
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...