Yesterday, I commented “Nigel Farage says Johnson’s deal is Not Brexit. I find that to be a joke.”
A reader replied: “Farage made an interesting speech on Monday. He covered 10 points regarding why Johnson’s deal is not Brexit.”
- The UK keeps state aid under the EU rules.
- The UK keeps social policy under the EU rules.
- The UK keeps regulatory policies under the EU rules.
- The UK keeps environmental law under the EU rules.
- The UK keeps employment policies under the EU rules.
- The UK keeps taxation policies under the EU rules.
- The UK keeps fisheries under the EU rules.
- The UK is likely prohibited from negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world.
- The UK pays 65 Billion for the privilege of all this.
- Even if the UK agrees to all this in exchange for a Free Trade Deal, then the EU Court is the judge of any disagreements down the road.
In case you want official Brexit Party statements, please see If you only read one thing about Boris Johnson’s deal,make it this.
The points are mostly the same but in a different order.
Differences Between Johnson’s Deal and Theresa May’s Deal
Bloomberg explains Differences Between Johnson’s Deal and Theresa May’s Deal.
Customs Union
This is the big one. Under Johnson’s deal the U.K. will leave the EU’s customs union, allowing it to strike its own trade deals with other countries. Under May’s proposals the country would have stayed in — at least until it had reached a free trade agreement with the EU — preserving trade ties built up over its 46-year membership of the bloc and its predecessors.
Conclusion: Point 8 is a blatant lie.
Level Playing Field on EU Rules
Johnson wants to give himself greater room to diverge from EU rules on, for example, social and environmental standards — something that has already angered Keir Starmer, the opposition Labour Party’s Brexit spokesman.
May’s Deal: The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relationship.
Johnson’s Deal: The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The political statement says “The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards.”
Bloomberg accurately points out “On the face of it, Johnson’s deal commits the U.K. to a host of new safeguards and trade relationships. However, the political declaration is just that — a statement of intent rather than a binding commitment.“
All that crap about trade, governance, taxation, etc., was removed from the binding Withdrawal Agreement to the non-binding political declaration.
Ironically, Labour is upset because it understands Johnson can indeed weaken employment standards, worker protections, etc.
Conclusion: Points 1 through 6 are a pack of lies.
Three Main Differences
The Journal comments on Three Main Differences Between Theresa May’s Brexit Deal and Boris Johnson’s
THE KEY DIFFERENCES between Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement, and Boris Johnson’s version of it are the alternative arrangement to the Irish backstop, a consent mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the level-playing field provision.
The “level-playing field” provision was another sticking point for UK-EU negotiators. It essentially aimed to create a base level of standards for labour rights, the environment, tax and state aid rules.
This is so as to ensure state aid rules aren’t used by either side to boost their own companies; labour rules aren’t lowered in order to increase company profits; or environmental standards aren’t renegned upon in order to become more competitive post-Brexit.
This had been a legally-binding agreement contained in the Withdrawal Agreement – it’s now stated in the Political Declaration.
Reference to a customs union as the baseline for a future trade deal, and UK alignment with EU regulations have also been removed.
Same Conclusion: Points 1-6 are a huge pack of lies.
Frictionless Free Trade
From the Guardian article How is Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal different from Theresa May’s?
The commitment to frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is restated. “Nothing in the protocol prevents the UK from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK’s internal market”.
The EU and the UK will aim for a zero-tariff deal with unlimited quotas. The entire UK, including Northern Ireland, will be free to sign trade deals.
The line in the political declaration that “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with union rules in relevant areas” in any future trade talks has been ditched.
One source said the removal of this albeit vague promise of being aligned to the EU in future has been the key to unlocking the support of the European Research Group.
The island of Ireland is considering a single market for electricity so homes in Northern Ireland can get their energy from a supplier in Northern Ireland or the republic. There were fears this could be disrupted by Brexit. Under the Johnson deal, the provisions of union law remain so nothing will change.
Point 8 is a blatant lie.
Fishing
Fishing and financial services are details to be worked out later.
Point 7 is a lie.
Trapped by the European Court of Justice
The problems won’t end with the transition period. Don’t be fooled just because the Political Declaration on future relations is not legally binding. Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement requires us to use ‘best endeavours, in good faith’ to negotiate a future deal in line with the PD. Any breach of this duty will see the EU haul Britain before an arbitration panel – half EU appointees, half pro-EU judges from the UK. And the panel must defer to the European court on anything concerning EU Law. If they rule that a UK law goes against the Political Declaration, UK courts will have to overturn that law (WA, Articles 170-175). The Political Declaration is a trap from which there is no plausible escape.
That is the concluding paragraph of the official Brexit Party statement.
Let’s tune into the Independent for analysis.
EU law will apply in the transition period
After we leave the EU, we will go into limbo, known in the bill as the implementation period (IP), although everyone calls it the transition period, which lasts until December 2020.
During this period nothing will change, except that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU. The bill makes this explicit: the European Communities Act, which puts the obligations of membership in British law, will continue to apply.
Parliament will have a say over trade deal negotiations
The bill gives parliament control of the negotiating mandate for the long-term trade deal with the EU (the “future relationship” in the jargon). It says ministers may not engage in negotiations unless a statement of objectives has been approved by the House of Commons, and that ministers “must seek to achieve” those objectives.
‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ Clause
That portion sounds ominous. But Johnson negotiated a pair of escape clauses.
The bill includes a clause that begins: “It is recognised that the parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.” This is persiflage designed to keep the sillier Eurosceptics happy. They do not like the continuing application of EU law during the transition period, or the eight-year phase-out of European Court of Justice jurisdiction over some EU citizenship questions.
Trap Door Clause
The bill gives parliament a say if the UK government decides to ask for an extension. But many MPs are worried that Boris Johnson wouldn’t ask for one, opening a “trapdoor” to a delayed no-deal Brexit if there is no trade deal with the EU in place by the end of 2020.
If Johnson does not like the negotiations, at the end of 2020 he can walk away with No Deal, more accurately, a WTO Deal.
Trap Door to No Deal
CNN reported Labour Says Johnson’s Plan is a “Trap Door to No-Deal”.
Keir Starmer, the opposition Labour Party’s lead spokesman on Brexit, has been addressing MPs. Much of his speech has focused on the trustworthiness of the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.
Starmer also echoes the fear of many Labour lawmakers and some Conservatives – that a no-deal Brexit could happen at the end of the Brexit transition period in December 2020 if a free trade agreement is not concluded with the EU by then.
Johnson’s deal is a “trap door to no-deal,” Starmer said.
Walking Away
Amendments to get rid of the Trap Door failed. In fact, the WA was never approved. If Johnson’s deal is approved, it will still contain the Trap Door.
Labour is not the only one worried about the Trap Door. Ken Clarke, an exiled Tory, also expressed concerns over the Trap Door.
Labour and Farage cannot both be right. Advantage goes to Labour.
The UK, can at the end of 2020 simply walk away with a WTO arrangement. Thus, Johnson is in control. He can always walk away if he believes the political declaration is binding.
The Trap Door is in fact what makes the EU likely to negotiate a reasonable deal.
Conclusion: At best, point 10 is a huge distortion of the truth, if not another outright lie.
Exit Settlement
The breakup fee was not in the Withdrawal Agreement by design as explained by the UK Parliament document Brexit: The Financial Settlement.
In the financial settlement (the settlement), the UK and EU have set out how they will settle their outstanding financial obligations to each other, which arise out of the UK’s participation in the EU budget and broader aspects of its EU membership. The media have labelled the issue the ‘exit bill’ or ‘divorce bill’, the EU see it as a matter of ‘settling the accounts’.
The settlement sets out the financial commitments that will be covered, the methodology for calculating the UK’s share and the payment schedule. It forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) negotiated between Theresa May’s government and the EU. No changes were made in the WA negotiated between Boris Johnson’s government and the EU. The WA will become legally binding only once approved by the UK Parliament and the European Parliament.
Definitive figures of the settlement can’t be calculated as it depends on future events, such as future exchange rates and actual EU budgets, but estimates have been produced. The latest estimate is that the settlement could cost the UK around £33 billion, based on an exit date of 31 October 2019. This is lower than the widely cited estimate of £39 billion, which was based on an exit date of 29 March 2019. Delaying Brexit means that the UK makes more payments to the EU as a Member State but fewer through the settlement. The net effect for UK payments to the EU is zero.
The official Brexit blog explains things this way: “The £39bn payment demanded is likely to be just the start, with billions more to follow.”
However, Johnson did give a speech stating 65 billion. You can play the video at The Express.
That’s a lie.
Scotland
Nigel Farage says PM’s Deal Would be a ‘Disaster’ for Scots.
The article did not say why.
I suggest Scotland would be no better off on a hard Brexit than under Johnson’s deal.
In regards to SNP, Farage is right about this: “You cannot be independent if you’re governed from the European court of justice. You cannot be independent if you’re in the EU’s customs union and single market. You cannot be independent if you’re governed by Monsieur Barnier and Mr. Juncker.”
Ireland
If you believe Johnson threw Ireland under the bus, you finally have a strong point.
DUP wanted a veto of the arrangement but the EU could not grant that because DUP in and of itself would effectively have a veto over some EU policies.
But even them Johnson negotiated an exit as explained by Bloomberg.
Unlike May’s deal, which could have left Northern Ireland in the EU customs union indefinitely, Johnson has negotiated an exit route: The Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to vote on whether to go on applying EU rules. But that can’t happen until four years after the transition period finishes — so the end of 2024 at the earliest.
Northern Ireland will be trapped for four years. It is difficult to say precisely what will happen.
Johnson’s deal was a red line for DUP. It has 10 of the Northern Ireland seats in the UK parliament. 7 are held by Sinn Féin nationalists, and 1 is independent.
Theresa May got tangled up because she needed DUP votes to stay in power.
Question of Trust
If you believe Johnson will not negotiate sincerely or will cave in to EU demand, I am not going to change your mind.
However, Johnson negotiated the best deal possible with the EU once Theresa May gave away the farm.
At a minimum, Johnson negotiated a deal that has the option of walking away. The EU significantly changed the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration.
This is despite enormous pressure from Remainers and deal advocates.
Had Johnson pressed for No Deal, it is a political certainty that Remainers would have defeated the effort for something far worse than Johnson’s deal.
Many Labour MPs regret not having passed some deal, even Theresa May’s deal so they could campaign against it.
Instead we have elections Johnson is poised to win.
Pack of Lies
Regardless of what you think Johnson will do, Farage’s 10 key points are a huge pack of lies and distortions.
Johnson Farage Alliance?
It is not at all clear that Johnson could unite with Farage to deliver a No Deal Brexit.
There has been so much fearmongering and there are so many Tories who wanted a deal to conclude for sure that a Johnson-Farage lighting rod alliance would carry the day.
The best move for Farage would be to declare victory for his 30-year effort and move on.
He could even ask for or insist on some items in the upcoming negotiations, say fishing rights.
Instead, I suspect the Brexit Party will win zero seats while Farage moans from the sidelines.
WTO Deal On the Table
The Guardian Live reports the prime minister abandoned his pledge to give MPs a vote on whether or not to extend the Brexit transition beyond January 31 , 2020.
“We aren’t extending the implementation period. There is no reason whatsoever why we will not secure a deal by that date. Both the UK and the EU are committed to reaching a trade agreement by that date and that is what we are going to do,” said Johnson
The announcement led to claims Boris Johnson was planning to force through a no-deal Brexit.
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1191688684682326017
Johnson committed to giving parliament a vote if they would pass his deal. They refused. That offer is no longer on the table.
Bluff? Who knows. But at a minimum it will give the EU something to think about including a preliminary agreement which the WTO allows.
Well Done!
Lies Aside
I decided to add this addendum.
Despite blatant lies the UK owes Farage a dose of thanks.
Tim Bowling’s BrexitCentral article Nigel Farage has misjudged the mood of Brexiteers, which is why I’ve left the Brexit Party for the Tories explains.
Nigel Farage has always been a hero when it comes to Brexit. Unquestionably, the EU referendum would not have happened without him. He is a man of the people who galvanised two parties to electoral success and helped deliver a referendum result few felt possible even on polling day. But we are at a point now where the great hero of Brexit has become the man who might, as Jacob Rees-Mogg says, ‘snatch defeat from the jaws of victory’.
Nigel’s success in the European election thankfully ended the abysmal Theresa May premiership and ushered in the man who should have been elected Conservative leader three years ago – Boris Johnson. Fast forward nearly six months and the situation could not be more different. Conversely we now have a situation where the Brexit Party has ceased being the means of delivering Brexit and morphed into the party that could prevent it ever happening.
When dedicated Brexiteers from the European Research Group such as Mark Francois and Steve Baker (both ‘Spartans’ who consistently voted against the Theresa May Withdrawal Agreement) believe the Boris deal is Brexit, it seems ever more ludicrous that Nigel is continuing to preach about a perfect scenario. There is no such thing. It is high time he accepted this fact. Worse still, the behaviour of the Brexit Party leader is now coming across as petulant sour grapes. Unusually for Nigel, he appears to have totally misjudged the mood of Brexiteers. Most now acknowledge he should only be targeting between 20 and 50 Northern and Welsh Leave seats – and certainly not the full slate of candidates who are rostered to stand. Several of his own MEPs are in open revolt and even some of his general election candidates are standing down in protest. How ironic, then, if the man who championed the Brexit cause for three decades were to be the catalyst in overturning the largest democratic mandate this country has ever witnessed. I urge Nigel to put country before party, do the right thing and stand his troops down. If he does, history will respect him and he will always be our Brexit champion. If not, Brexit could be lost and he will be vilified by the very supporters who were once his political lifeblood.
This deal will deliver Brexit.
Moreover, Johnson could still opt for a WTO Brexit if the EU will not cooperate.
That’s an amazing achievement.
Getting 80% of what you want and then pissing in the wind because you do not get the other 20% is not smart politics.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Oh dear, oh dear here we go again. Can some people not get it into their heads that there are two stages – exit (i.e. get it done) and trade deal (or no deal) to be negotiated? One is a treaty, the other is an aspiration.
Once we are out, assuming there is a good enough majority to drive it through house, all the UK has to do is adopt the negotiating position that May failed to even comprehend existed. We set the base as WTO, we prepare in earnest for it to be implemented it and we stick firmly to the mantra that we are willing to walk away if not satiated.
Cue massive wailing and wringing of hands by former remoaners but who cares? Anyone who’s been watching Continental politics can see that Merkel will be toast before long, everything changes then anyway.
.
BTW it would not surprise me one bit if this is just some posturing scheme and Farage backs down.
But meanwhile, lies are lies.
He hasn’t lied about anything. However, it may be that he will back down. Or maybe his decision not to stand himself tells us quite a bit.
” I don’t understand how one minute Farage is god’s gift to humanity and the next, according to Mish, he is the devil incarnate.”
Hello AvidRemainer I never said Farage was god’s gift to humanity. I did say he was good for the UK.
He made an excellent contribution to the Brexit campaign.I explained my reasons.
And I never called him the “devil incarnate.”
You are making up a ridiculous straw man that has no footing.
There are numerous MPs and others who agree with what I said.
You don’t see because you don’t want to see.
The facts remain.
1: Farage is a Brexit liar
2: Up to this point he was a hero who helped deliver the Referendum
Those points are not mutually exclusive now are they AvidRemianer?
All politicians are liars of course, but Farage is Blatant and detrimental to his own own cause.
Mish, today the liar compared Corbyn to Stalin and his treatment of the Kulaks. Does anyone in the UK believe that Corbyn will have 500,000 people executed and allow 5,000,000 others to starve to death? No, they don’t. It is that for a long time Farage could do no wrong and now you condemn him in the strongest possible terms.
Perhaps the numbers are too high, but it is not inconceivable that in time something like that could happen, it happens elsewhere when conditions present themselves.
Both articles correct.
The first is simple facts of the matter about which there is no dispute.
Second is an opinion I agree with.
Thanks
Great analysis Mish.
Here is also another good article that explains why both Nigel and Trump are not right (to put it mildly) with regards to BJ’s deal.
I said it “mildly” because I support both, as both of them fight for conservative values both here in the UK and in the US:
The other one is from Arron Banks who fought 2016 referendum together with Nigel and who explains why he now supports BJ’s deal:
reply to@Milosh… AARON BANKS could very well be right when saying ” who knows, the Brexit Party might hold the balance of power along with the DUP ” . Wouldn´t that be fun for the Tories ?
Nigel Farage is campaigning hard and thorough in no more and no less than Workington itself before anybody else including TORIES which have supposedly made the W-man their campaign leit motif.
So, after all is said and (not) done in three-years time, maybe Donald Trump will be the only one that was right when he suggested to Theresa May that the best way to approach Brexit was to sue the EU…
You really don’t understand the politics in my opinion. You back-hand Farage as being a true hero for getting Brexit but not understanding how he will kill the whole idea. Sounds elitist to me. “You’re good but not our kind.” Here’s my take: DUP will not like the deal. There goes 10 votes from Johnson. The Libs will get all the remain votes that Labour doesn’t get. In order to have political persuasion, Farage must pick up enough Brexit votes to deny Bojo a majority without those votes. If Farage achieves that then the Brexit THAT HE HAS GIVEN MOST OF HIS ADULT LIFE TO WILL BE ACHIEVED. I encourage him to do this. It’s the only move he can make. And, FWIW, Bojo is a weakling and idiot. But he may get his Tory majority and ignore Farage. My guess is that Farage’s party will surge in the polls and Bojo will be forced to make concessions before the election.
Farage as kingmaker is not the problem. What people are wary of is if pro-brexit seats get lost in the competition, and if conservatives go for an extension if the deal they prefer is blocked by Farage.
Brexit is not as big a deal as its made out to be because Britain never joined the currency union. Also given how slow economic growth has been, it will have a negligible effect on the economies of EU and Britain. In fact creating new trade deals will create opportunities for companies in Britain and elsewhere.
Bagger is Correct:
Barnier’s comments were yesterday (or earlier). Boris gave his response yesterday – “No extension beyond Dec 2020”. Seems clear enough to me. Either Barnier gets a move on next year or we leave on WTO terms next December. As Mish describes in above article.
Barnier is playing some sort of game, perhaps hoping for a Labour win.
Such talk is north worth discussing.
In the end, I fully expect a temp arrangement without ECJ garbage. The WTO allows favorable trade treatment while a deal is being worked out.
That is the logical conclusion. And BTW such an agreement would meet “best efforts” language.
QUESTION for everyone, specially Mish:
Just WHY do you think the EU Parliament members were oh so happy to joyfully high five with Bojo his own surrender New EU Treaty (not a “deal”) ?
Michel Barnier sports the perfect “cat that just ate the canary” look no ?
“the whole deal emerges in 3 years’ time or later — and will only emerge at all if Britain agrees to all the EU’s terms.”
Just like the EU would NEVER change the WA?
Just like the EU would NEVER change the political statement?
And what about the ability to walk away in one year if the EU won’t.
That results in the WTO arrangement which I assure you the EU does not want
So, it’s not 3 years is it? It’s 1.
At the end of 1 year I expect the EU and UK to agree to a temp deal which the WTO allows – The ECJ will not come into play in a significant way or the UK walks
This negotiation stance is pretty easy for the UK. And I believe it will work.
There is no way the Tory party will agree to a WTO exit in a year’s time. Boris has not removed the whip from the ninnies en masse. He took it from 21, but gave it back to 10, and the Tory wets will remain a large contingent after the election. To say a no deal in a year’s time is anywhere near to being a possibility is to ignore everything you know about the Conservative party.
“There is no way the Tory party will agree to a WTO exit in a year’s time.”
You do not know what the term means or even allows. Look up temp agreements in the WTO and report back
Mish, you’re buying into the argument that BJ scored a triump by getting the EU to reopen the WA. But in fact, they just went back to the original NI-only backstop that the EU preferred in the first place – and had been ruled out by Theresa May as a step no UK prime minister could make.I mean, try telling the Germans that the final deal will result in Britain dictating regulations to Bavaria and setting up an internal border in Germany. The truth is that BJ did not get the WA reopened at all. The backstop is still there in NI, and an effective backstop-like trap is there in that the EU can trap Britain in an indefinite transition period unless it is willing to go on the WTO (which, looking at Tory backbenchers, they would never do).
That is a good roundup Mish. Mish has put himself out to present this to us, and he leaves room for it to be argued, so no need to accuse him of agenda.
Personally I see that there is room for the WA to be taken in either direction, and I am in no position to say in advance what tory intent is, obviously I am wary. At best a tory majority allows a decent set of agreements to be reached or no deal, at worst it just turns into another way to reach a May deal or similar.
As for Farage, well I haven’t figured that out either yet.
So any view by necessity is somewhere speculative, has to be unless tories make a clear pledge on their direction, so making it half speculative. They probably won’t, and half speculative is as good as speculative as far as certainty is concerned, but let the discussion continue, it is the only way to build a picture no matter which side of it anyone is….
Misha, this is so absurdly partisan you are in danger of ruining what was a good blog. Yes, the UK will be able to strike trade deals, but 1. they only come into force once the transition period ends, and the agreement allows the EU to trap the UK into a never-ending transition unless we agree all their terms (it could walk away on the WTO, but won’t), and 2. the ability to sign trade deals will be constrained by whatever regulatory alignment the UK agrees with the EU. For example, if regulations are agreed with the EU designed to “capture” the UK car market in perpetuity, the US can agree lower tariffs with the UK, but will have to abide by the regulations the EU imposes. So your point about ability to strike trade deals is not as good as you claim.
On the political declaration: no, this is not just a statement of intent. Because Article 184 of the actual withdrawal agreement requires, legally binds, the UK to negotiate to achieve the goals in the PD with its “best endeavours”, and the arbiter of whether the UK is using its best endeavours is the ECJ. For example, the UK cannot simply decide not to hand fisheries over, as it has a legal commitment to use best endeavours to agree “non-discriminatory” access to its waters for EU fleets (the word ‘non-discriminatory’ is in the PD). The likelihood is that, short of leaving on the no deal in December 2020, Britain can only exit the transition period when it agrees to all of the EU’s terms. So your point on the PD is entirely false.
On Northern Ireland: the frictionless nature of trade with GB is undermined by the need to fill in customs declarations (and by the unconstitutional stationing of southern Irish officials in Northern Irish ports with the power to override UK officials in every circumstance). Horror stories will abound about someone in Belfast buying 10 things online from Great Britain and being told the Southern Irish officials believe this could be for export to the RoI and so the EU customs tariff must be paid (with a very cumbersome process to reclaim it).
You say fishing and financial services are to be worked out later. But the whole point is that this is not the deal — the whole deal emerges in 3 years’ time or later — and will only emerge at all if Britain agrees to all the EU’s terms. If we don’t use our best endeavours we are in a backstop-like permanent transition period.
We can walk away with no-deal in December 2020 – but will have signed up to pay £39bn we don’t owe anyway. In any case, the Conservatives would never walk way with no deal. Have you seen the remainers on the Conservatives benches and how he’s restored the whip to some of the Remainer rebels? If his idea of negotiation is to hand over Northern Ireland and £39bn for nothing, you can be sure he will never leave the transition on a no deal. You say the £39bn may be £33bn, but it could be £59bn if the transition period is extended — or even more if the transition period never ends. You didn’t even mention the fact the UK is liable for up to £40bn if the eurozone collapses under a guarantee to the European Central Bank.
As soon as what you have written becomes common knowledge in the UK, and it will, then the liar’s deal will be seen for what it is. I have a feeling that this election is going to blow up in the liar’s face.
I also think it’s important, whatever happens in the election, for Farage to oppose this, because in 3 years’ time when we realise that the Conservatives never will leave on the no deal, and so they have to agree to hand over fisheries and control of taxation and regulations, it will be seen by all this was not the deal the Tory press is trying to paint it as. Farage in 2022 will be seen as the only one telling the truth.
Here we obviously differ , I am a remainer. This is the first time I have ever experienced a Tory party being attacked by a credible party from the right. I am not sorry that the liar is being skewered from both right and left he deserves it.
The problem with a lot of these posts (and to some extent Mish’s articles) is that whichever side we support we tend to approve of positive articles and decry negative ones. So djwebb1969 and avidremainer will love your post but the rest of us think it is a load of ********s and vice versa.
We are entrenched in our positions and unlikely to change our views irrespective of what you write.
There are, however, many millions of voters who are not so fixed on Brexit and could be swayed either way. Looking at the millions of column inches being published the level of misinformation, bullsht and downright lies from ALL sides greatly disappoints me. I do fear that the election will be won or lost on who can get away with the biggest mistruths.
Even your post neglects to mention the “divorce” payment will be down to approx £22 billion by end 2020. I can’t remember the detail but I think the UK/ECB guarantee has changed considerably since the Bruges Group Paper in 2012. Even those figures assumed the collapse of the Euro could mean Germany and France become bankrupt and we become the sole guarantor. If that scenario happens then the further detached from EU we are the better – £40 billion would be a small price to pay.
In April 2017 Mrs May was on 50% in the polls, by election day she was a lame duck. This suggests that most people are not entrenched in their views and that it is all to play for.
I did say many millions of voters are not fixed on Brexit. The point I was trying to make (rather badly it appears) is that people like us that read Mish’s blog are not likely to be the ones to change our minds.
I view this blog because most of it is close to my beliefs and I enjoy the fact that Mish always tries to find the extra angle to any issue. I also learn a lot.
If people don’t like what Mish writes I am not aware of any law that states they have to continue reading it. There must be thousands of blogs I don’t bother reading because I just don’t want the hassle of continual disagreement – I am much too old for that.
My apologies, I took the wrong end of the stick.
No. The way incorrect comment drives this discussion is alarming. The divorce bill of £39bn is not money we legally owe, but a large part of it relates to the “membership fee” for the transition period, which is what you’re talking about. But the UK will not be a member in the transition period, so why should it pay the same level of fee? Not forgetting that most EU members don’t pay anything in – there is no net fee for them – as they are net recipients. In any case, saying the balance will be “only” £22bn by the end of 2020 illustrates the way we cannot get a sincere discussion going. Handing over £22bn for nothing in terrible – and as the transition will be longer than 1 year, the bill will be much higher. No, the £40bn does not assume Germany and France are wiped out. We are exposed to 500bn euro liabilities, but our “share” is £40bn, which already factors out Germany’s and France’s shares. Why lie about this?
In broad terms, this is what Team Hammond agreed with the EIB. As a 16.1% shareholder at the bank, the UK would be due on departure a repayment of €11 billion in capital.
But Hammond wrote off – gifted – €7.5bn of UK taxpayers’ money. For no reason that makes sense for Britain.
Further, the remaining €3.5bn will not be available in cash.
Hammond has agreed that the sum can be paid back interest free over the next 12 years. By which time the euro probably won’t exist.
If only it ended there.
Hammond has put Britain on the line for another €36 bn of capital help – with no preconditions – to help underwrite the EIB should the eurozone collapse.
Still not worried? During the Brexit transition period (currently standing at five years and counting) Britain would be liable as per its percentage of EIB ownership for a share of this bizarre bank’s loan note risk arrangements.
Hammond has given a guarantee that we will cough up this sum of €80 bn as and when required.
The EIB is a bank with a long and thoroughly deserved reputation for risky, incontinent lending. Philip Hammond’s goodbye present to this organisation isn’t exactly going to make the Bull pull in its horns. Is it?
BRITAIN IS HANDING OVER €123.5 billion IN GIFTS & LIABILITIES WE ARE UNDER NO COMPUNCTION TO OFFER. THROW IN THE INSANE €39bn “DIVORCE FEE”, AND THE TOTAL CREEPS UP TO €162.5 billion.
Just to put that into some kind of perspective, it’s bigger than where the Greek debt started, it’s the entire NHS budget
Why?
From memory, the £39 billion divorce bill was an estimation of potential liabilities which included balance of EU Budget contributions to end of Budget Period – end 2020; Share of ongoing Pension Contributions, commitments to ongoing projects such a Galileo etc. These assumed we left March 2019. If we leave end 2020 there will be NO outstanding balance on Budget Period. We are stilll paying that each month during the Extension. Hence total was reduced to £33/34 billion if we had left end Oct. This will reduce further to approx £22 billion if we leave end 2020.
The majority of the rest, is for items we have previously agreed to pay and, in my opinion, should be honoured. Almost €10 billion is to pay future pensions accrued to actual Brexit date.
I know about the EIB guarantees but I am struggling to recognise your ECB/Euro figures.
Well, you say the balance is “for items we have agreed to pay”. I didn’t agree to pay them. And “in your opinion they should be honoured”. How can I opt out of payment for things that Bagger wants to force me to pay for? Everything you say is loosely worded: “from memory”. Er… talk from knowledge, or say nothing. “In my opinion”. Er… I don’t care about your opinion.”I am struggling to recognise your figures”: Er… this means you just don’t know. Quote real figures, not all this “I’m not sure, but” stuff.
Silly me. I didn’t realise that djwebb1969 doesn’t understand the difference between EIB and ECB.
His original post explicity referred to our liabilities to ECB. My post said I understand liabilities to EIB but I didn’t recognise his figures for ECB.
I wonder if he will now accept his rant at me might have been a bit hasty?
No, Bagger it is you were trying to say that the share of our liabilities (which already factors out German and French shares) should be further divided to factor out the German and French shares again.
I have to admit that I pinched your comment, and with a little judicious editing posted on a site where it was subsequently deleted by the site host.
However, prior to it being deleted it created an awful lot of crying and hollering, not much agreement and a confirmation that the commenters on the site are woefully misunderstanding the WA.
I think alot of people read what other people have said, but still haven’t read, about the WA and the PD.
None so blind as those that won’t see.
Yes, deleting posts is regarded as the best way of dealing with a counterargument on some sites!
In typical political fashion, nothing proactively will get done, and markets will force other exits and the Brits will be dragged along in a much more chaotic way.
The UK voted twice to leave, and politicians refuse to accept the democratic process, just as we see in the US with Trump. The global establishment will keep taxing anything that moves to save their jobs, perks, and power until they sufficiently destroy their economies to force desperate people to do desperate things.
Civil unrest will ramp, and since we still have the 2nd Amendment, expect the gun grab to be ATTEMPTED after Trump leaves. This would result in another Civil War.
Sorry, but Jean Claude Junker also agrees with Nigel Farage
Blah blah blah blah. Book a conference room. Extend and pretend.
Guys, as we squabble, Michel Barnier of all people supports Nigel Farage´s position.
Barnier’s comments were yesterday (or earlier). Boris gave his response yesterday – “No extension beyond Dec 2020”.
Seems clear enough to me. Either Barnier gets a move on next year or we leave on WTO terms next December. As Mish describes in above article.
Boris gave his response yesterday – “No extension beyond Dec 2020”.
Did he utter those words from his grave in the ditch that he made for himself when he said that we would leave 31st October 2019?
Boris lost his credibility as the first second of 1st November came around and we were still stuck in the EU. This horrible deal that leaves us in thrall to the EU is clearly BRINO. I am sure that the EU are very happy with it, they get everything from it, our fish, our money, free access to our markets, Northern Ireland. I cant see that we get much of anything from it that we couldnt get from going WTO.
Farage is the person who organised the Brexit and has been campaigning for a Brexit all his life, and now he suddenly “tells a huge pack of lies?”
It’s CLEARLY BoJo who is the charlatan and the liar here. (just like Trump!)
Is “Mish Shedlock” just a pseudonym for the Tory Party these days? How much do they pay you to promote BoJo? Or do you get paid by the big US corporations who think they can make a killing on that lousy ‘BRINO’ deal that BoJo cooked up?
People have become worn down by this and WANT to believe in the BoJo deal without looking too closely. I see this with people I talk with day to day. They can’t be bothered any longer – they just WANT it to be true. They are far more concerned to get on with their lives and run their businesses without having all this hanging over them like a sword of Damocles. I sense a lot of people in the UK are saying ‘If it says Brexit on the tin, that’s good enough for me’. So I think if there is any miscalculation on the part of Farage, its that Brexit just isn’t important enough in people’s lives any longer. That is why there aren’t millions (17.4) on the streets protesting in favour of the leave campaign.
Miles and miles and miles of red tape with the potential of WTO at the end; or bite the bullet and WTO now? This is all just typical of the EU bullshit designed to tie the UK in knots forever more that we voted to get away from.
I would agree with you, I’ll believe Brexit happens when I see it. Remember the Congressional Republicans and Democrats with the Sequester (if they couldn’t get a balanced budget they were supposed to do cuts across the board) years ago. When the day came to do the Sequester, what happened. Congress PUNTED.
The initial drop date for Brexit was March 29 this year, now we are in November.
Great article Mish, appreciate your chasing down each of these arguments and going through them one at a time.
Indeed avidremainer totally gets it. The UK is stuck with all 11 points I wrote, when the UK sits down to negotiate a free trade deal.
BJ’s treaty is a version of Hotel EU (aka California). The UK checked out, but it cannot leave the EU, if the UK tries to get a free trade deal or deal with other countries.
Some how, some way, this Brexit thing will be in relatively the same place next year November and probably every year thereafter.
Accurate Assessment here:
Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party votes will mean a yet again “hung Parliament” which will not allow for approval of Bojo´s New EU Treaty.
This means that we shall have NO-deal Brexit on December 31, 2019, as no further extension will be approved by the EU even if the UK asks for it.
Just ask Jean Claude Juncker
yeah, imagine sticking by your guns for democracy.
Mish, you reach the conclusion that “Point 8 is a blatant lie”.
Point 8 says that “The UK is likely prohibited from negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world.”
But besides Nigel Farage, it´s Donald Trump that says the same thing very emphatically. Are they BOTH wrong ? Just asking…
Yes both wrong – even the Guardian pointed it out – Simply wrong
I betcha Trump was just repeating what Farage had told him the day before, so really it’s just Farage that’s wrong.
Mish: do you have a read on what Farage is trying to do and why? All my instincts are telling me your basic take is right, but I just can’t ‘grock’ what he’s up to.
Unless maybe he’s just supplying pressure from the ‘hard Brexit’ side which is already in part responsible for the recent shift in keeping various walk-out options on the table etc.
Excellent article, thanks.
Johnson can walk away which presumably Farage wants. So what is he bitching about?
65 billion a made up lie
Points NOT accurate negotiable in the next year – all bullshit
Besides now conflating Brexit with a free trade agreement with the EU
WA + PD = Brexit. To put it another way the WA is the easy part then follows the trade deal. The UK is in for years of this. Brexit is not an event it is a process.
If there’s no longer a Remainer Parliament, changes everything. It will take a year for the big stuff, maybe more time for supplemental details. Both sides want to move forward now. They tried to trap the Brits and failed. It’s over. Now the EU wants to get on with its Empire-building with Army etc., and the UK wants to get on with becoming the Hong Kong of Western Eurasia, the capital of the Maritime Powers Alliance in the heart of Europe.
Actually, it’s a win-win for all involved.
This argument is going to take a while to settle, and of course amongst a certain percentage it never will.
“Some changes have been made to the Political Declaration which sets out the framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Before going into these it is important to note that Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement commits both the UK and EU to use best endeavours to give effect to the terms of the Political Declaration. And because the Withdrawal Agreement is subject to EU law, it is the ECJ that would determine whether or not this best endeavours undertaking had been fulfilled. The Political Declaration is not just a wish list – it has bite. Once we sign the Withdrawal Agreement we will no doubt sign up to a new Free Trade Agreement incorporating the terms of the Political Declaration. The negotiations leading to that Free Trade Agreement are bound to be protracted and that is why I am certain the transition period would not end before December 2022 (the extended date provided in the Withdrawal Agreement).”
The author then lists a few specific examples where sovereignty will be sorely lacking finishing with:
“There are no stated termination provisions in the Political Declaration for these future arrangements which would be implemented as a treaty. In the absence of express termination provisions, terminating treaties must be undertaken in accordance with the Vienna Convention of 1969. The grounds for doing so pursuant to that convention are extremely narrow, potentially committing the UK to this new treaty in perpetuity.”
It would have been so much better to have left without any agreement in March or October 31st, but…
You and I have a fundamental disagreement on brexit. I burn no candle for Farage, in fact I think he is a great danger for mine, and my country’s future. That said when someone is right then you have to acknowledge it. I don’t understand how one minute Farage is god’s gift to humanity and the next, according to Mish, he is the devil incarnate.
The UK wants to get on with becoming the Hong Kong of Western Eurasia
——————
And we all know how well the China / Hong Kong thing worked out, don’t we.
not accurate
Bullshit speculation
Mish, you don’t like Farage, we get it. But Farage is the REASON we got here in the first place. Sheesh.
” There is no free trade deal with the EU unless…” You omitted this sentence from the above item. This makes what Farage said absolutely true. All 10 points are accurate.
Farage didn’t pre-condition his statement with your words. No free trade agreement does not mean no brexit without those points applying. Others here are questioning conservative direction, but to state it as being a certain way for sure is not possible.
You are clutching at straws mate.
I’m one of your (thankfully maybe) disenfranchised, and I’m not sinking, nor have any effective (in terms of vote) persuasion or enthusiasm to lose. Either you talk technical facts (in which case what I am saying is true and yours an exaggeration), or we speculate, in which case either reality is possible in eventual practice. This is a question of trust or intuition or inside knowledge, but as I say, I’m an outsider and am not directly subject to the emotion of it all – no point as I cannot or do not vote. So you are just reading my observations, there is nothing to disagree on except whether one of us is trying to dispirit the other. As the referendum was lost by remainers, well I have no need to do so towards you, so I guess that does just leave one of us. Maybe someone else will accept you as their whipping boy though, who knows?