Tell me I'm wrong: Brexit Withdrawal Agreement edition

[andrewducker]

I've now had disagreements with multiple people over how the Withdrawal Agreement would be different if Theresa May's red lines over the future relationship were to be different.

Looking at the key points here, or a different summary here, I really can't see what would be different if the red lines were different.

The future relationship, absolutely, yes. But the WA covers a divorce payment, a transition period, and an Irish border backstop. I can't see any of those changing. So what do people think _would_ change? Is there a decent writeup covering what would be different? What am I missing?

Comments

[skington]

A soft Brexit, without the red lines on freedom of movement or the nonsense on making our own trade deals, could have kept us in the Customs Union and Single Market, presumably with intermediate courts rather than direct applicability of the EUCJ. Basically a bespoke Norway.

[andrewducker]

None of that is part of the withdrawal agreement. It's all part of the future relationship agreement. Which isn't getting negotiated until the withdrawal agreement is signed.

[skington]

Arguably if both parties agreed that the UK would stay in the CU and SM, there wouldn't have been a need for a backstop, or at the very least it would have been less controversial.

[andrewducker]

It works certainly have been a lot less controversial.

[claudeb]

"So what do people think _would_ change?"

If you'll forgive my cynicism here, it looks like British leaders thought everything would fix itself magically, and it would be business as usual again. That a fairy godmother would appear and wave a wand so they can have their cake and eat it too.

God dammit, Britain. It's hard to admit when you've screwed up big time, but you folks are taking it to extremes never before seen. It would be so much easier to just drop it and come back. You can even have your superfluous second referendum if you like. But you don't even want to do that. Would make it too obvious to what a degree the first one was based in deceit, and how thoroughly people have woken up, isn't it?

Here's the trick: now they'll never fall asleep again any time soon. Do the right thing already.

[jack]

Oh yeah, good point. Now I am utterly confused again. I definitely thought a lot of this was May planning a hard (but not no deal) brexit and people disagreeing. But I guess technically not? Was the relationship already part of what we negotiated with EU? I thought it was, but maybe only in principle not in detail?? I guess, MPs want May to specify that NOW, rather than get a withdrawal agreement voted on, and then have May wait two years and present a relationship agreement a month before the deadline?? Especially if they want to keep the option of remain if they don't like the deal??

[andrewducker]

The vague direction of the relationship is agreed, but only really in principle.

"The withdrawal agreement is legally-binding - the political declaration is not. It sets out broad aspirations for the kind of relationship the UK and the EU will have after Brexit. Some of the wording of it is non-committal and allows both sides to keep their options open."

From here

And yeah, I don't know what else MPs thought they were going to get agreed inside the WA.

Having said that, if they'd agreed the border backstop in the first three months that would have left 21 months to discuss the future agreement before we smacked headfirst into the Article 50 deadline.

[chickenfeet]

At this point, if it ever was, it's not about substance or the UK's relationship with the EU. It's about preventing a split in the Conservative party. That's the mirage that May has been pursuing all along. Somehow she believes that there's a magic formula that will satisfy the closet imperialists (and opportunists) without plunging the UK into chaos. Unfortunately she can't negotiate the clock back to 1850. So, what you say about the WA is correct. It's the only option that meets the commitments already made while getting the UK out of the U; whatever the future negotiations hold. But it's just not about substance anymore.