>>[a] EU has not accepted it but why?
>>[b] some leavers are against it but why?
a)
They maintain that they are not willing to give the same or similar privileges to non-members that members receive.
They maintain that they want all the same protections that the UK wants, but for the EU. Borders, movement, control etc. etc.
I was told recently by a man that should know, that he believed the EU would play hard ball until the last minute and then make concessions.
That could be, though it surprises me a little. However, as I said, the man who told me should know.
b)
Remember that the motivations of the leavers and the motivations of the remainers was fundamentally different. Before anyone starts jumping up and down this is, of course, a generalisation and I am passing no comment as to right/wrong or better/worse.
But, to generalise, leavers were primarily concerned about sovereignty. Even the concerns about immigration essentially came back to sovereignty.
By and large the remainers were more motivated by economic, financial and legal reasons.
Because of that the approach to compromise is different. Again generalising, remainers don't really care what you call it, aren't that bothered about sovereignty but want to keep as much of the previous environment as possible, though know that they will have to lose some to one degree or another.
For a leaver how can one compromise leaving? You can't leave a bit anymore than you can be a bit pregnant. In general the leaver is not driven by financial, economic or legal reasons beyond want to leave the EU and regain sovereignty.
Their belief is that The Chequers Agreement does not recover that sovereignty.
From my own point of view the main stumbling block is the ECJ. Not because it should be, or even that it particularly is, but it is most certainly perceived to be.
My prediction; we will leave with a deal. That deal will come with a 2 year period of transition, and for those two years we will have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, though we may well phrase it in a way which tries to make it look like we do not.
For those two years I believe that it is impossible to avoid the ECJ jurisdiction, they oversee every agreement and we cannot remake them all in time.
Then those two years will largely consist of various industries and companies negotiating their own position, independent of the law or the EU. I believe that those deals will largely be BEANO based.
Though one advantage will be that I doubt they will have any impact or effect on any other deals we wish to sign with other countries or areas.
The Governments, WTO, EU and others will still control tariffs. Contrary to the overly simplistic belief simply adopting the WTO tariffs would be difficult and bad for the UK. Very bad.
But a two year transition ought to be sufficient to get that sorted out.
The issue with the Irish border is not what it is now. (low traffic of goods, services, people, money between NI and I, and high between NI & the rest of the UK) but what it would become with that loose border in place.
The loss of freedom is a mistake, I believe. Perhaps we should have retained free-ish movement with very low visa requirement thresholds. Hopefully that will be the end point. Anybody who is not a drain on the country they are going to should be able to move freely in my opinion.
One stumbling block to the cooperation on security and defence is that the majority if that is data based. If you recall the recent argument between us and the US about extradition, evidence and the death penalty, then there is a similar issue.
The EU data sharing involves also being signed up to pretty strict data protection and usage structure. Unfortunately that [pretty reasonable] agreement is overseen by the ECJ.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 10 Oct 18 at 14:35
|