Brexit: UK and EU 'agree text' of draft withdrawal agreement
bbc.comThis all seems to be entirely moot, given that there is a slim chance of this deal getting through parliament - assuming it’s anything like it’s expected to be.
What a colossal waste of time.
Nah, they're just blustering. Nobody would be crazy enough to let the UK crash out with no deal.
Err... I hope...
Last I heard, other MPs so keen to make sure that the UK wouldn't go for No Deal, they were threatening to make sure that the government couldn't get the changes to law required to make it possible through: https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1061897525467234304
Of course, this doesn't stop No Deal from happening, because it happens automatically on March 29th unless something changes... but it does ensure that it will be a complete and utter shitshow which will naturally be blamed entirely on Brexit supporters by the UK press.
So that's basically the state of UK politics.
I think most of the press would rather seek to continue blaming the EU for not acceding to the UK's demands and remainers for failing to give Brexit their full support.
Do you expect May to resign if it doesn't pass?
NB I have no idea what is going to happen over the next while.
I don’t see how she can stay in her position, but then I’ve been so baffled by what’s happened lately that anything’s now possible.
You’re not alone, FWIW. I’m pretty sure literally nobody knows how this is going to play out.
I'm genuinely surprised she's hung on as long as she has. We're going through a very strange period in politics.
The UK prime minister's office is a hot potato. No one actually wants to be in a position where they have to make the hard decisions; they instead want to be in a position where they can criticize the decisions for being wrong (without having to offer any alternatives!).
Like the other reply says, nobody wants this job.
It’s difficult to remain neutral, but… there’s realistically no feasible way to deliver Brexit without medium-term economic damage, or alternatively accepting essentially all EU rules while having minimal influence on them. Few serious politicians wanted it, and they don’t want to step into a role where they have to deliver it. The idea seems to be to let her take the blame for the inevitable failure first.
So, do we (the public) get to see this agreement? I thought the vote was about taking power back from unaccountable Brussels etc, etc, etc.
So what happens now? If half the torys are already against this, there doesn't seem much of a chance of this passing. May has ruled out a second referendum (I know I shouldn't take her word for it, but I cant see her now announcing a 2nd referendum). So what now? She steps down/ is pushed. Then A) A Brexiteer takes us out without a deal. B) No one wants to take responsibility for removing us and calls a 2nd ref. C) election called. Then back to square one? This is the option I'm most worried about. Labour doesn't seem ready to stand on a manifesto of remain. The lib Dems wont be able to get a majority, so brexiting parties will win by default, except we have no idea who. And they wont have anytime to do anything.
Did I miss one?
Edit: Spellong
Irish foreign minister said the negotiations are still ongoing:
That's why it's a draft... 5 months before deadline...
The agreement has to be ratified by EP and 28 national parliaments though, so realistically it's much less than 5 months.
I sure hope the EU hasn't given in to the DUP.
But since May won't get anything through parliament, it's probably a moot point.
My expectation is that everyone is going to suddenly fall into line and she'll get it through.
May's play is to delay as much as possible and then at last moment call Parliament to vote, when there really is no more time left to negotiate. Then Parliament only has to choice of "no deal" or "May's deal" and she seems to hope for enough votes for her's ... sad times
Corbyn wants Brexit to happen he’ll whip Labour into passing it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/11/...
YouGov poll on labour voters would suggest caution on Mr Corbyn's part.
I voted remain mainly because I could not see how UK could dis-engage from local markets and just-in-time processes without significant turbulence. Corbyn gave EU 6.5/10 marks, I personally would score around 5.5/10 or 6/10 mainly because of the treatment of Greece.
Basically, like on Slackware when you misconfigure something, 'stormy weather ahead'
So Greece should be allowed to run up huge debts and then not pay them back?
So banks in Germany should be allowed to lend huge amounts of money to countries with the same currency but much higher bank rate without regard to loss?
'Moral Hazard' is something I have reservations about.
I mean I see your point but it works both ways, should German pensioners pay for the mistakes of bankers and successive Greek governments... really I’m a bit playing devils advocate I don’t think the Greek people should be paying either.
Half a currency (Eurozone has common currency value but national banks can still set bank rates) is the problem I think. UK stayed out of Euro because of the Black Wednesday experience during the ERM I suspect.
I mean they can disobey the whip.
He should have the self awareness that trying that could result in Labour collapsing like the LibDems did.
He already has caused more harm than good to the Labour Party over his stance on Brexit.
He’s been a Euroskeptic since the 70’s he sees the EU as a neoliberal capitalistic endeavor which stands against everything he stands for.
Over the past 2 years now he showed no opposition to Brexit which goes against the wishes of his party members and their constituents and against the ideals of being an opposition party.
I really don’t see him changing his tune now as he showed he is incapable of letting his own ideals take the backseat to the will of the party.
> he showed he is incapable of letting his own ideals take the backseat to the will of the party
A trait that has garnered him many followers.
Fewer and fewer every day. Like Trump, Corbyn has a hard-core minority that will back him no matter what, but his support within the general party diminishes every time a new poll comes out and his popularity within the general electorate is currently down in the rubbish levels enjoyed by our sad PM. He may currently be seen as the lesser of two evils, but not by much.
Labour's position is to vote against the Chequer's agreement.
Labour’s position should be to oppose Brexit and to remain or rejoin, that is not however Corbyn’s position it never was and for the past 2 years he showed that he is not fit as a leader because he can’t bend his ideals to the will of his party.
Corbyn wants socialism, he want to nationalize the industries he wants to get rid of the neoliberal keynesian economics which the EU and every other social democracy in Europe promotes and follows he doesn’t want to be in the EU he was against the U.K. joining the EU in the first place and he didn’t do anything to prevent it from leaving.
> Labour’s position should be to oppose Brexit and to remain or rejoin
Why? It hasn't been agreed at conference.
There's a party for Remainers that want to ignore the referendum result they're called the Liberal Democrats or the SNP if you are up in Scotland.
Because that’s the majority of it’s members and people who vote for them want, they supposed to be an opposition party.
If Corbyn wants to run his own personal personality cult he should go form another party.
And of the 52% that voted for brexit? The problem I've found in politics is that politicians like to 'switch' their mandate depending on what's convenient. Half the time, rebellious MPs justify their behaviour by saying their "mandate comes from their constituents". So what of brexit? The majority of Labour MPs represent pro-leave constituencies. Now the same people are saying it's the "will of the membership" when that means nothing at all over any other issue.
I'm pro-Remain but I think Corbyn has been misrepresented by our media and colleagues so much that he's not going to do well no matter what. Christ, he was criticised for wearing a coat in typical British weather laying a wreath at the cenotaph.
That said, there is a section of the Labour party that has formed a dangerous echo chamber. I was routinely attacked by "friends" after saying Assad is an oppressive dictator. I was called names like "white supremacist imperialist" and, almost as bad, a Blairite. I left the party because it's a festering whole of negativity, anger and irrationality. I have misgivings about those people influencing policy, which it would invariably would via conference if Labour attained power.
52% of Labour voters didn’t vote for leave, I’m not saying everyone in the U.K. should support remain but the overwhelming majority of all Labour Party members and voters currently support remain, Labour is an opposition party as such they should support remain or rejoin.
The fact that Labour MPs had to rebel against their leader to support things like the 2nd referendum or a people’s vote on the deal does not bode well for what they are supposed to stand for.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. It's where the mandate comes from is fluid. I'm saying these same people have rebelled many times against what members want because "their constituents". It changes to suit their justification. Who's needs to do we favour? The constituents of the members?
I'm a remainer. I think the party should back remain and Corbyn is mistaken for not backing a second vote. But after the past behaviour of these rebellious MPs, I don't believe they're any better.
The other issue is that the majority of Labour votes come from leave areas. That's the other part of the 52% problem. We can placate the members at the potential loss of our core voters.
Again this isn't about Brexit in general but about the Labour's stance on it.
Officially the were supposed to support remain, their members support remain, their MPs support remain, their voters support remain and all overwhelmingly.
Corbyn is a Eurosceptic and that's the problem the are supposed to oppose the Tories and Brexit but Corbyn does whatever he can other than gleefully dancing in the street in support of finally leaving.
He didn't support his party in opposition leading to the referendum, in fact he went MIA during the critical weeks and days leading to it, he turns down the option for a 2nd referendum which the majority of his party supports and turns down the option for a people's vote on the final deal.
He did absolutely nothing as the leader of the opposition to bring forth legislation that would support the retraction of Article 50, a soft-Brexit with the possibility of rejoining the EU or anything that actually opposes the shit show that has been going on for the past 2 years.
The only thing he did it marginalize his party in the eyes of many Labour voters.
>The other issue is that the majority of Labour votes come from leave areas. That's the other part of the 52% problem. We can placate the members at the potential loss of our core voters.
The majority of labour voters want to remain, this was always the case now it's even more as over 1.4M labour voters that voted leave in the election now want to remain.
The crazy socialists that want the UK to leave the EU in order to get rid of the EU competitive laws so they could nationalize everything and finally have their venezuela are not the core of the Labour party they never were and hopefully never will be because that would be a dark day for the UK.
In the Brexit referendum 65% of Labour voters voted remain, 68% of LDs vote to remain, LD wasn't any more pro-remain than the Labour, both of them are now at around 80% support for remain.
Labour is a socialist worker's party. The LibDems exist. Why don't you join them? Why do you want to disenfranchise the socialists and take over the party?
I would probably guess that this would be because according to recent polling the vast majority of the members of this socialist worker's party actually support a people's vote. Is commissar Corbyn the only one that gets a vote?
So that’s why the Labour and the left wing media in the U.K. attacks anyone who calls them socialists and mocks them as perpetuating the red scare?
So either the Labour isn’t for socialists or they are hiding it to be palletable to their wide voting base.
The average Labour voter wants Denmark not Venezuela they want a better social democracy not breadlines and shooting people in the street.
Thats interesting do you have a reference for that?
There is a lot said about Jeremy Corbyn and I've noticed that a lot of the mainstream media (even left-wing like the Guardian) are very against him and have been vocal about everything he stands for, which I find interesting. This article,
https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-referen...
from 2016 says that he thought at that time we should stay in EU and this does align with what I remember of that time. He was widely quoted as saying that although EU needs to change, we should stick with it and help change it from within.
[edit] w/e
Opinions are partisan? Your comment lacks substance. That may be why it's being downvoted (for the record I didn't downvote you).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is going to be one hell of a bust-up before this is over.
Shambolic
Opinion on Brexit. Hopefully of interest:
I'm torn on Brexit.
If Britain stays in the European Union, then it won't have a lot of power to manage her borders. The "liberalness" of Britain's immigration policy ends up being at minimum the liberalness of each of the other 27 EU countries. Germany could let in 1 million immigrants (good for them), all of them would get citizenship, all of them can go to the UK, the UK can't say to any of them "Hold on a minute. Are you even a fit?"
Also, this kind of unrestricted immigration is a historical anomaly. 100s of years ago, it took too long to travel from one place to another, and so people who lived far away were more different to each other. It's not clear whether throwing all the borders open will result in something stable that will last for centuries.
It's also a colossal experiment. If the experiment doesn't work out (see the above paragraph) then 28 countries pay the price. The UK will be deeply affected because it's an immigrant magnet, due to its high living standards, a lot of employment opportunities, and a widely spoken national language; something might happen to Romania and Poland, given that much of their population has apparently emigrated. If the experiment turns out bad, then multiply the impact by 28 for each of the 28 countries.
And there was a recent article on HN about an EU law that says newspaper headlines are going under copyright. Again, mistakes like this affect 500 million people (the citizens of the EU) and 28 different countries. This is a monoculture, which is bad in nature; why not in politics? The Ottoman monoculture might have been one of the things that set the Middle East / North Africa back. For instance, the Ottomans banned printing (in Arabic). How would that have been good for science? And China's another famous empire/union (monoculture), in which one emperor dissolved their fleet, which was the most advanced at the time, impacting their trade, and preventing them from settling elsewhere. How is a European, or even a globalised monoculture, any better?
On the other hand, I can see how the immediate economic impacts of Brexit might be bad.
You are talking nonsense.
The UK has (and always has had) complete exemption from EU common immigration policy. The EU is not able to dictate immigration controls to the UK. If you have a problem with how the UK handles non-EU immigration then it is the fault of UK government policy, not the EU.
The complete exception from common immigration policy of the UK (along with Ireland and in some matters Denmark) is laid out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2009).
EDIT: to clarify -- I am referring to non-EU immigration here, not freedom-of-movement for EU citizens.
Really? Because "freedom of movement" seems to be the sticking point in the Brexit negotiations. The UK can't go the Norway route because it doesn't want "free movement" into its territory.
I'm referring to common immigration policy, i.e. from outside the EU into the EU. This is distinct from freedom-of-movement for EU citizens within the EU. Such freedom-of-movement does not apply to non-EU citizens.
A person from country C can immigrate into the UK by immigrating into one of 27 different other countries, and then using free movement to get into the UK. This makes border control harder.
Indeed. But to become an EU citizen you have to meet the citizenship requirements, the common standard for which the UK has previously negotiated and agreed along with the other members, PLUS additional requirements and limitations can be imposed by the UK for other kinds of long term residential statuses. It's not like one member state is allowed really lax citizenship laws, so people can choose to sneak in through there, and restrictions can be imposed even by the UK for a limited period.
The UK manages to both have influence over EU immigration policies AND also have exemption to it for non-EU immigration, AND can apply its own limitations even for when immigrants get citizenship for a limited period. Yet many brexiters spout on about how the EU just dictates everything to us and it's all out of our control. Absolute rubbish.
It can get into 27 countries depending on their terms for immigration, but then cannot simply use free movement to move to the UK. This is incorrect. As a non-EU national, your rights in this regard are severely restricted. After five years in the EU, with a means of support, you are entitled to move freely within EU with the exception of some countries, notably the UK. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_resident_(European_U...
> If Britain stays in the European Union, then it won't have a lot of power to manage her borders. The "liberalness" of Britain's immigration policy ends up being at minimum the liberalness of each of the other 27 EU countries. Germany could let in 1 million immigrants (good for them), all of them would get citizenship, all of them can go to the UK, the UK can't say to any of them "Hold on a minute. Are you even a fit?"
That's patently false. The EU doesn't prohibit (justified) immigration restrictions, and that sort of immigrant wave would be grounds for imposing restrictions.
It does prohibit them among the 28 member countries. They call it free movement. Each of those country's immigration policies is a loophole for the other 27. It's a loss of border sovereignty.
You are aware that the enlargement of the EU allowed existing countries to restrict migration from new countries, and that the UK government explicitly decided not to?
You are also aware that the EU specifically allows to limit the freedom of movement on "grounds of public policy, public security or public health"?
You are also aware that the recent migrant crisis of the past few years has caused these kinds of barriers to be raised in response? Proving that such restrictions are not just mere hypotheticals?
The European Union is, after all, not a suicide compact.
I'm talking about long term impact, not emergency measures. Everything you've mentioned is an emergency measure AFAICT.
For comparison, the impact of banning the printing presses only materialised quite a lot later than it happened. Remember that Europe used to be a lot of independent (and feuding) nations, rather than a union of any sort. There were unions of sorts under the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but England for instance was not part of those unions. it was in those times that Europe went through the scientific and industrial revolutions, while the empires I mentioned slowly stagnated.
No, you are arguing in bad faith (or ignorance).
British immigration policy is British immigration policy because as per European law it has mechanisms to prevent benefit immigration that is isn’t exercising
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...
The fact is successive governments have rightly identified that both skilled and cheap labour from immigration is keeping our economy afloat. Otherwise we’d see them at least tap the brakes. But they haven’t.
> The fact is successive governments have rightly identified that both skilled and cheap labour from immigration is keeping our economy afloat. Otherwise we’d see them at least tap the brakes. But they haven’t.
OK, so a politician living a comfortable life thinks one thing. Individual voters thought something else.
I believe the document above refers to emergency powers to stop immigration control under limited conditions. It doesn't solve any long-term impacts that an experiment like "free movement" between 28 countries can have.
[edit]
I can see why certain things are more nuanced. Somebody mentioned that immigration from outside the EU into the EU, and then into the UK, has certain restrictions. These exemptions seem to be in place for the UK and Ireland and some other countries.
By TPM:
> It can get into 27 countries depending on their terms for immigration, but then cannot simply use free movement to move to the UK. This is incorrect. As a non-EU national, your rights in this regard are severely restricted. After five years in the EU, with a means of support, you are entitled to move freely within EU with the exception of some countries, notably the UK. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_resident_(European_U....
[edit 20:40]
My comment wasn't just its first paragraph though. There's the problem that monocultures (like in crop species) might be better in the short-term, but can create long-term risk (combine your strengths together on the one hand, but make the same mistakes and have all the same weaknesses). I gave the copyright example. It's a lot easier for the copyright lobby to take over one entity, the EU, than over 28 countries each with disconnected regulatory systems. Even regulatory treaties don't result in monoculture, because somebody can leave a treaty much more easily than they can leave a superstate like the EU.
The EU Commission's position, if I remember correctly, is that all those mechanisms cease to apply as soon as the person gets so much as one temporary job of any length within the country they're moving to and that the host country must give them full benefits entitlement from that point forward.
No, that requires full citizenship in one of the member states.
The only problem in preventing illegal immigration since internal border checks are reduced, but UK cash have the border restored to higher scrutiny without running afoul of Schengen.
What the Brexit move actually does is prevent influx of Polish, Czech, Greek, Spanish, Italian etc. citizens into UK... Move of German immigrants into UK is almost certainly of no concern.
Seems conceivable that post-Brexit Tory governments would not do a whit about immigration for the sake of access to labor.
They couldn’t! Basic demographics mean this kind of approach would, like it or not, end us.
Although given the global inverse correlation between financial prosperity and birth rates, we’ll be back on our feet within a generation!
I think you mean "shouldn't." Capital does all sorts of things that you might find self-destructive. Do you think they'll behave any differently when they're beholden only to Westminster instead of Brussels as well?
That inverse property doesn't seem to be holding up for Japan.
The current approach will end the native population.
As soon as one is a EU citizen, they can move anywhere they want, without any restrictions, because these restrictions apply to immigrants only - as soon as one is a citizen, they are no longer immigrants. EU is different in this regard to the USA.
This is not true. In the EU there is a freedom of movement of workers. EU citizens from another member state need to either have an employment contract or they can be told to leave the country after six months of stay.
> they can be told to leave the country after six months of stay.
Which countries practice this?
That is not true. The only thing they need to do is to register their permanent residence in the new country and they can't be forbidden. You're misunderstanding the law, this is done to stop people from not registering their real addresses for tax/avoiding legal action purposes.
EU nationals can even vote in municipal politics in their new place of residence even if they're not citizens of that country; another big argument of the opposing party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#Free_mo...
The right to movement of workers comes from the treaties and the ECJ decisions[0]. The basic outline is as follows:
1) You have a right to stay in another member state (host) for three months without any restrictions.
2) After three months, if you are not (self-)employed, restrictions can be placed on you. In particular, hosts will require you to prove sufficient resources to support yourself, including health insurance. If you are not employed and cannot prove sufficient means, you can be removed.
3) If you lose your job, you have a right to remain as a job seeker for six months. If you do not find a job within six months, you have to prove to the host that you are actively seeking a job, and that you have a realistic chance to get one. If you cannot prove that, you can be removed.
4) You get a right to permanent residence in the host after legally staying there for five years.
5) It is currently unclear if you have a right to the six months of job seeking before you've had an employment contract in the host state.
While I'm not a lawyer, I have used these rights myself three times now so I've read through them carefully as well as the local regulations in the countries I worked in.
[0]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-mo...
In theory host countries can require you to prove sufficient resources to support yourself, including health insurance. The problem is that this only really works for countries whose healthcare is structured as insurance in the first place, like the continental European states do; no-one has figured out a sensible way to apply this to the UK's single-payer, free at the point of use healthcare.
Non-EEA nationals who are here long term just pay a surcharge for the right to use the NHS, but that's not allowed by the EU rules. In fact, the European Commission's position is that since the NHS is free, this rule should be interpreted as allowing everyone who comes here from other EU states to use it for free even if they're not working and not paying into the NHS, and that this should fulfil the insurance requirement.
There was a bunch of press controversy over the UK enforcing the rule as written in some cases a year or so back too.
What? UK cannot just ask for an income statement or the you live as a proof, that's what you're saying?
Moreover the migrant worker has to pay tax in the country they're living in, so tax statement may be good enough.
Most of EU has "single payer, free at point of use" healthcare rather than US model of insurance.
And if they're not working, they can be elected after three months. Is three months slip enough to even put a dent in NHS budget? I'd say not at all. It's not like people are migrating to UK to get temporarily better healthcare. (It sucks compared to almost every other EU country.)
Additionally, for temporary stays, UK can probably demand reimbursement from the member country of origin.
No, the UK can't ask for an income statement - the rules only require that people can prove they have enough money to live on. No, they don't have to pay tax - that only happens if they have income. No, this isn't limited to three months - that's only the point where they have to prove they can support themselves in order to remain. And whilst most of the EU doesn't use the US model of insurance, the state-run healthcare in the other EU states is generally set up as a state-operated "insurer" which you have to pay into for coverage. The UK is pretty much unique in funding healthcare from taxes and giving access to all residents for no extra charge.
That "as soon as" is a high barrier to pass - there are many ways for temporary immigration to EU, but there's no mass granting of citizenships to unskilled immigrant workers, just as in USA.
The problem is that any EU country can set any rights for gaining a citizenship it wishes, even post facto, without getting any approval. A country could theoretically decide to give citizenship to people for free and other EU states would be forced to agree.
You also have freedom of movement in the US. I am unaware of any border controls between US states.
Yes but the US is a federation. The EU people don't want that.
EU is slowly progressing towards it anyway. Why else did European Army works start?
I'm not saying it's not - I'm saying that there is a certain non trivial amount of people that doesn't like it.
""" the UK can't say to any of them "Hold on a minute. Are you even a fit?" """
This only applies to workers, which roughly means that if they have a genuine job there. Historically, the UK has had more relaxed rules, I believe allowing pretty much indefinite leave to remain without work for EU citizens, but there is no requirement for the UK to allow that under the EU's "Freedom of movement".
> This, by the way, is a real HN comment as I imagine it. Not just saying something short for peer approval. I know which way HN leans.
Well, I was about to upvote you, because I thought it's unfair your reasonable comment is grayed out. Until I read this. Then I did the opposite.
Downvote complaints become self-fulfilling prophecies.
I was commenting on something above. A short comment which I interpreted as a short "I don't like this." which I thought was a bit echo-chamber and lacking in substance.
I take your point though. Not great style.