https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46318565
Start here?

This is the problem.
I've not read it, and I doubt many have, and yet we may be forced into another vote on it.
If we do have to have another vote only those who can prove they have read it should be allowed to vote on it.
I have no idea how this would work in practice.
.
I have only ever read one party manifesto and yet I am allowed to vote in general elections

Found it https://ec.europa.eu/commission/files/draft-agreement-withdrawal-united-kingdom-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-european-union-and-european-atomic-energy-community-agreed-negotiators-level-14-november-2018_en
.
Will have a go at reading it and see how far I get

Mike. Thanks.

But the article does not actually tell me anything. What is Brexit, I know that, Draft... yeah get that but it’s a draft what has in real terms been agreed

This is the problem.
I’ve not read it,

I think I might just have a, blinking obvious, solution to your problem...

yeah get that but it’s a draft what has in real terms been agreed

Unfortunately, by its very nature, its not going to be a simple "real terms" agreement. There is lots of detail covering a wide range of different areas.
Its why we ended up in the mess in the first place. Its not easy to put into soundbites if you have any interest in accuracy or honesty.

The current and only deal that our PM has delayed is that we'll have to do as we are told by the EU.

The EU don't care that much, they are probably getting a bit annoyed, though.

The back stop situation is quite frankly a checkmate situation no matter how you spin it.

The only realistic options on the table are stay as we are, or destroy our country by our own hands.

Clear?
Good!

Thanks Andrew.

Again a “Draft”

Secondly. Since this is of major political significance why is such a document not been published as “Hey look what we have negotiated for the UK”

Guys

Stick to the specific question

What has been negotiated and agreed to us the STW layman

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL DEBATE/DISCUSSION THERE IS ANOTHER THREAD FOR THAT.

I must have missed it. Got a link?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

knock yourself out.

The UK-eu withdrawal agreement is basically that we will follow the same rules unless and until another economic partnership with them is agreed. The backstop on northern Ireland is a bodge that allows a fair chance of peace persisting there, but basically means the island of Ireland including the uk bit is different to mainland UK.

We have a draft if you want deal with the EU to set out the terms we leave on, it settles what we owe and sets out stuff that starts to form our relationship going forward.
A really key part of that is being called the backstop, there needs to be some sort of border between the UK and the WU based on what the governent has set out as it's red lines.
Unfortunately for them we entered into an international leagally binding agreement called the Good Friday Agreement to end the troubles in NI. That means we cannot force a hard border with checks etc that prevents people living, trading and working both sides of the border. That is one of the key problems.

As it stands a very small handful of MP's support the deal.
Some want to leave on terms much harder.
Some want to stay more with the EU.
Many want to remain.

If it comes down to it, and you do not understand all the options and their implications then vote to remain. Nobody has provided anything credible that says your life &prosperity will be better under any form of leave.

Dipping into it just to have a look, picked a paragraph at random

&
/en
250
CHAPTER
3
EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
ARTICLE
149
Reimbursement of the paid
-
in capital
The European Central Bank shall, on behalf of the Union, reimburse the Bank of England for the
paid
-
in capital provided by the Bank of England. The date of
the reimbursement and other practical
arrangements shall be established in accordance with Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European
System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank.

This imediately raises some questions with me. Why were we providing capital to another central bank in the first place? (Propping up the Euro maybe?) How much are we going to get back when we leave? How much more would we have to put in if we stay? How much more if there is another Eurozone crisis?
In order to answer these I think I'm going to need a much greater understanding of the history of the ECB and how it works.
One short paragraph in a fairly large document and I'm already struggling. How much of this would the average person be able to understand given their level of knowledge about the EU? Assuming I'm fairly average, not a lot is my guess

Mike I get it. In the same breath

“Nobody has provided anything credible that says your life &prosperity will be better under any form of leave.”

I’m not looking for how my life will benefit but as a collective Nation yes

That’s a big one Andrew

Ok here's the deal...

As members of the EU we pool our sovereignty & negotiate trade deals etc as a block of nations & benefit from frictionless trade thanks to shared standards & regulations

Under May's deal we lose sovereignty as the backstop* keeps the UK in the customs union, but we no longer have input into the trade deals & regs we are bound by, but trade between us & the EU (& crucially to honour the good Friday agreement) NI & Ireland is kept free of checks & tarifs

The other option, that we leave with 'no deal' would see us gain the power to begin the (long) process of negotiating our own trade deals with the rest of the world & the EU, but throw up considerable barriers between us & the EU (& NI & Ireland) as we become a 3rd country subject to the same checks as any other 3rd country

*It's a backstop only to be used if no other solutions can be found, the Brexiteers tell us that technology can make border checks disappear (yet are apolplectic about the backstop, because really they have no such technological solutions)

So May's deal does limited damage to our economy but robs us of influence in forming the rules & regs we must follow

If it comes down to it, and you do not understand all the options and their implications then vote to remain.

So if you don't understand what you are tying yourself into then you should stick with the status quo? We seem to have developed some sort of National Stockholm syndrome. Why not leave and try to come up with something better instead? There's a whole other world out there that we could engage with as the EU becomes more and more insular.
.

Glad you turned up Kimbers. Not in a cynical/troll way but you have a great knack of relating to subject matter One can understand.

I kinda get it now.

So..... excuse my ignorance. NI no biggy. We leave, which we will no doubt do. Who do we trade with, Sturgen will hit the button, Trump the Rump will see no value to n the UK and keep pumping oil the suppress the market.

Your right Kimbers. The rich will get richer and the gap widens.

Who do we trade with,

https://www.ft.com/content/57c4e3ce-ca22-11e8-b276-b9069bde0956
One example. There are nearly 200 other countries out there, most growing their economies a lot faster than the EU

What is the “Deal” that has been nigociated

Oh joy, another Brexit thread.
I hope you get herpes for Christmas you racist.

“So if you don’t understand something then stick with the status quo? Why not leave and try to come up with ”

This is the point of the thread to understand

Just to go back to the who do we trade with question: 7 EU states in the top 15
This is from worldstopexport.com, just came up as the first google hit

United Kingdom’s Top Trading Partners

Japan’s imports from the UK increased by 15% year over year.
.
It only gives the top ten for trade deficit, but seven of these are EU States.
Overall the United Kingdom incurred a -$199.2 billion trade deficit during 2017, down -11.4% from -$224.9 billion in red ink in 2016.

Germany: -US$41.5 billion (country-specific trade deficit in 2017)
China: -$38.3 billion
Netherlands: -$24 billion
Norway: -$19.8 billion
Belgium: -$14.4 billion
Italy: -$10.9 billion
Canada: -$8.8 billion
Poland: -$7.1 billion
Spain: -$6.8 billion
Vietnam: -$6.3 billion

And to quote our elected leader
In
“In detailed discussion today the cabinet has agreed our collective position of the future of our negotiation with the EU”

What does this mean ?

Would you buy an Audi from her ?

Less than a week these “detailed negotiations” have been negotiated with the exception of NI.

What are these detailed negotiations?

Would you buy an Audi from her?

Rather that than a Mercedes. 😉

The main problem with the 'International Treaty' is that it is woefully short on substance.

It is an International Treaty that allows a bit more time to negotiate a real treaty somewhere down the line. Because this is as much a statement of intentions as it is an actual treaty. Because it is very difficult to draft a very complicated legally binding treaty in two years. And yet it is in fact a legally binding International Treaty at the same time.

Within the treaty is an agreement that the current state of affairs will remain in place for another year's worth of 'horse trading', and if 'we' fail to make it any more real in that time, then the current state of affairs will be maintained in NI ad infinitum . Or until a satisfactory actual treaty can be properly negotiated. Which amounts to the same thing. Or does it?

This is in essence the problem with the 'deal' - for it is not really any such thing. Although it might be, but we won't know if it is until later.

This may be a reasonable 'deal' to make if you are planning to meet with some friends later at the pub, but don't want to say that you'll definitely be there because you kind of said you'd go bowling with your brother, though it's quite likely that he'll have to work late anyway so it probably won't happen, so you'll almost certainly probably be there, but it is not the kind of basis for a legally binding International Treaty.

Sort of thing.

@andrewh you popped up with a brexit central link on the other thread (one of the least credible news sources going) where are the sources for your stuff here.

Why not leave and try to come up with something better instead?

A fair question but the wrong way round, why not come up with a better plan and then if it is genuinely looking like being better (after proper evaluation*) then by all means we should leave.  You don't jump out of a plane that has a landing gear problem until you've determined that you're wearing a parachute

There are nearly 200 other countries out there, most growing their economies a lot faster than the EU

Source/examples? Because really there aren't. Maybe in % terms but would you rather I gave you 3% return on on £10,000 or 300% return on £10.

* we don't trust experts, project fear, yadayada, etc.

One example. There are nearly 200 other countries out there, most growing their economies a lot faster than the EU

And who are harder to do business with. As much as anything due to location.

In addition when negotiating for something it's important to be in a strong position. Maybe with backup of others. When alone and in a desperate position do you think any deal with other countries will really be very good? Only the ones in even more desperate positions!

We also benefit from EU trade agreements with non-EU countries which will not apply post no deal Brexit. This will give EU members a competitive advantage over the UK with those non-EU countries post no deal Brexit.

This is another reason why the terms of a post Brexit deal are important - and not the 500+ pages of transition document but deal that will be negotiated after we leave cldketched out in the 21 page political commitment.

A fair question but the wrong way round, why not come up with a better plan and then if it is genuinely looking like being better (after proper evaluation*) then by all means we should leave. You don’t jump out of a plane that has a landing gear problem until you’ve determined that you’re wearing a parachute

Great answer

When you stop and think about it, how irresponsible, ignorant, and downright arrogant is it that the government hasn't made a concerted effort to explain these issues properly to the general public?

I know a lot of people will say they're not interested, or won't understand it, but they should be at least trying, continuously, and in as many different ways as possible to make it clear what exactly they've negotiated and trying to get through parliament.

And all of us who realise the importance of all this (and I'm assuming that's everyone on this thread) should be taking personal responsibility to try and understand the facts of it too. So with that I'm off to read this from the link above, which seems to be a kind of "The Deal for Dummies" so should be a good place to start:

I just want to say that "nigociated" sounds like a new rapper on the scene! I approve of this spelling mistake.

I know a lot of people will say they’re not interested, or won’t understand it, but they should be at least trying, continuously, and in as many different ways as possible to make it clear what exactly they’ve negotiated and trying to get through parliament.

Yep, The fact that freedom of movement is gone (a point I would say is one of the main reasons for the Leave vote) and it is hardly mentioned. That alone would be enough to make it a good deal for the anti-immigration people.

There’s a whole other world out there that we could engage with as the EU becomes more and more insular.

Who says it's becoming more and more insular? Those trade deals you list exist largely as a result of our position within a powerful trading bloc (the EU).

It's only a draft but, but in short, and I only get this from reading is from a few news sources to try to avoid spin.

We pay a huge pile of money to leave £40bn or so, this payment allows us to have a trade agreement that's for all intents and purpose like remaining within the Single Market, but importantly from a political stand point, not. Political from our sides as the Eurosceptics hate it and from their side as they say freedom of movement is a prerequisite of being within it. We no longer pay them £18bn a year to be members, nor get £6bn back in rebate or £4bn in funding back for economic development. So technically we're £8bn a year up on the deal, but neither side of the argument is claiming that we won't lose more than that by leaving in any form of brexit other than theoretically decades from now.

We lose our presence in the European Parliament, no more MEPs, no more EU Elections, and no more absolute veto, so whilst we cannot have new laws governing internal matters 'forced' on us from the EU (of which we currently have a veto on) we will no longer have an automatic say in trade which we will have to accept or leave.

We close our 'open' boarder with the rest of the EU, so you'll have to show your passport when entering and leaving, like you do now, unless you moved there, or are from there and live here, then 'tbc' is your status for now. Except in NI, because obviously there's a lot of political issues there with some wanting to be part of Ireland and some wanting to be part of the UK, the Ireland people don't want a hard boarder with the rest of Ireland, and the UK people do, sorry, that's not right they "don't want to be treated differently to the rest of the UK". Who would have thought getting into bed with the DUP would have blown up in the Tories faces, that's right, everyone. This will stop anyone from the rest of the EU arriving here and making a life for themselves, or us doing them same in the EU, unless it doesn't. It won't of course make a blind bit of difference to the people who come here hidden in the back of Lorries or indeed arrive legitimately and over-stay.

Don't take that as fact, just my understanding.

There’s a whole other world out there that we could engage with as the EU becomes more and more insular.

The fact that the EU just signed the world's biggest ever FTA with Japan belies odd statements, even Liam Fox is tying himself in knots over it.

https://twitter.com/LiamFox/status/1073298501746991104?s=19

But back to the OP A lack of honesty on both sides has been pretty poor, but some of the fantasies & outright lies of the Brexiteers is constantly repeated in the rw press, even the BBC have failed by not holding politicians to account when they lie of R4 Today or Question time, newsnight is better but Ann Marie waters this week told some outrageous fibs?

May has never explained why she's made the trade offs she has & why the deal she's got is the best we could've ever expected.

The "deal" is a shit way of getting over the line of "delivering brexit" that puts us in a shit position with no clue as to where our future relationship will go other than that we are all losing our freedom of movement and will have no say in the future direction of our largest trading partners (ie the EU). Any promise of a new global britain is kicked firmly into the long grass and will be Someone Else's Problem after May swans off into the sunset to sit in her bespoke garden shed.

Those of us with decades of life to look forward to will be spending those decades trying to unpick the damage that this fiasco has already done to the UK. Whereas the old gimmers who voted for this in droves will be pushing up daisies oblivious to the shit they have heaped on their children and children's children.

Whilst there is a lot of attention being given to UK-EU trade and to a certain extent rightly so, if we leave the EU almost every trading relationship we have with other countries changes too as all the FTA we have negotiated as part of the EU are rendered null and void.

It's this point generally someone pipes up about a "World Trade Deal" under WTO rules...which is largely bollocks.

https://www.explaintrade.com/blogs/2018/12/11/world-trade-deal

Nothing has been negotiated. The 27 other countries have signed something that they know will be rejected by parliament. Then it's back to a blank sheet of paper.

A bit like me and my 8 yr old grandson finalising our specification for an anti-gravity machine. As good as it looks, it isn't going to fly.

So if you don’t understand what you are tying yourself into then you should stick with the status quo? We seem to have developed some sort of National Stockholm syndrome. Why not leave and try to come up with something better instead?

This is a straw man. Staying in the EU doesn't have to equate to "do nothing," there's plenty of other things we could be doing. Why not remain and try to come up with something better instead?

We pay a huge pile of money to leave £40bn or so,

Jesus christ, have we not dispelled this hoary old nonsense yet? We do not have to pay to leave the EU, this is a Leave lie / tabloid spin to further demonise the EU. The so-called "divorce bill" is money we're committed to paying as part of ongoing projects, it's money we'd be investing regardless of whether we leave or not.

Leave lie / tabloid spin to further demonise the EU

Not really, the Remain case use the term as well as it in their interests to suggest we are wasting a bucket load of money as a result of leaving, if anything its existence improves the Leave case as it shows the true cost of our membership has been understated when looking at it on a cash basis.

As for the OP's question, like the referendum this is a simple question with a very, very complicated answer. It's hard to summarise in a couple of pithy sentences because you can't pour a lake into a pint pot. But I'll have a go.

We've negotiated a deal which is arguably better than anyone could have hoped. It allows us to keep some of the benefits we already have as part of the EU, and fudges some of the stickier problems like the NI issue by essentially saying "yeah, we'll deal with that later." In return we lose any influence we had in EU policies and decisions, along with all the central administration and bureaucracy that we've been offloading to the EU for the last 40 years. This is, depending on who you believe was lying the least, broadly what was promised two years ago.

The problem now is that the goalposts have moved. The far right has had the taste of blood and the "WHY DON'T WE JUST LEAVE" imbeciles* won't be happy unless we set fire to everything and send the UK back to the 1940s. They've finally realised, two years too late, that whilst we've got the best leaving deal we could possibly have hoped for it doesn't actually gain us anything, it's merely the scenario where we lose out the least. The uncomfortable truth is that no-one engaged on either side of the debate really wants this.

There will no doubt be more votes, elections, court-cases, extensions, backstops and miscellaneous can-kicking to come for months if not years but it boils down to this. Ultimately one of three things has to happen: 1) We roll over and accept an utterly pointless deal because something something will of the people something; 2) We come to our senses, revoke A50 and attempt to address people's concerns domestically instead; 3) We do neither of those things and end up with the square root of **** all.

Because make no mistake, "no deal" is not something that anyone with a jot of sense and integrity would ever want. It's not an "option" and should never have been presented as such, rather it's the disaster that happens if we run out of options. Who avoids Black Friday because they've got some great deals on? "Bugger that, I'll wait till January when I can pay full price again" said no-one ever. The only people who want "no deal" are either the aforementioned imbeciles, racists, or one of the select few very very rich people who have been pulling the strings from the start and stand to become even richer from brexit (venture capitalists, newspaper owners, politicians with offshore bank accounts, basically all those "elites" we're supposed to be hating right now).

So now we're faced an impossible quandary. The government doing a U-turn without losing face and incurring the wrath of the kippers and gammons is going to be challenging to say the least; proceeding with the deal pleases exactly nobody; and crashing out with nothing would be utterly ruinous for decades to come.

(* - because, if you don't understand why we can't "just leave" by now, yet you still really really want to do it, you are ipso facto an imbecile.)

it shows the true cost of our membership

It's not the cost of membership, it's the cost of investments and programmes we've agreed to. We have shares in the EIB, contribute to Erasmus, Nigel Farage's pension, and a thousand other things all of which are mutual benefit to the UK and the EU27.

This notion that we're giving away free money is something that should have been put to bed two years ago. The UK has a symbiotic relationship with the EU. We pay in to EU programmes because it benefits us to do so FFS.

It's like cancelling your mobile phone contract halfway through, being surprised and annoyed that you're still liable for the remainder of the contract, and conveniently ignoring the fact that you've had an iPhone X and ten gig of data for the last year. Still, at least you'll be free to write letters to people, take back that control.

This is a straw man. Staying in the EU doesn’t have to equate to “do nothing,” there’s plenty of other things we could be doing. Why not remain and try to come up with something better instead?

This is one thing that has really annoyed me during the whole 'deal planning' thing, tabloids, and when it suits them successive governments have given us the impression that we're a powerless pawn at the Mercy of the EU. A decent party might admit that none of our mainstream parties have bothered to campaigning in European elections, which gave UKIP a huge leg up and effectively all we've done there for the last 5 years or so is act like pricks and tell the rest of Parliament we want no part of this.

For the OP, let me try to explain the 'backstop'. Before 1972, every country had its own taxes on imports, and rules on who it would let in. The Common Market, and then the EU, put all the member countries together, so there were no import taxes (customs duty) between them, and no restrictions on movement of their citizens - so within the EU we have 'soft' borders - the law changes, but crossing the border is easy. The full customs and immigration border between the EU and the rest of the world remained, a 'hard' border. The British and Irish Governments were able to make use of the soft border to reduce conflict in NI (the Good Friday Agreement), which among other things made the border not much more than a line on the map, with people from both sides crossing daily (like they do between, say, Belgium and France).

If the UK is out of the EU, and Ireland is in the EU, there will have to be a hard border somewhere. If it's between NI and Ireland, it messes up the Good Friday Agreement. If it's between NI and Britain, it's dividing the UK. The DUP in particular don't want it between NI and Britain, so I really don't understand why they support Leave. For some reason nobody in Government saw this coming. The politicians have put forward lots of ideas such as doing the customs checks and duty payments electronically, but there will still have to be physical checks somewhere to control smuggling and immigration. Since there has to be hard border, but it can't be in either of the only two places it could be, the problem is insoluble. So there's a fudge, leaving it to be sorted later. But "in case" (= because) it can't be sorted later, there's a backstop which says the UK stays in a customs union with the EU. Which, for that aspect of membership, is like not leaving, except that we no longer have any say over the rules. Since there's no solution to the fudge, the backstop will end up being used. The Leavers don't like this, because it means we haven't left properly, and we won't be able to negotiate our own trade deals. The Remainers (well, me at least) don't like the Deal either because we end up giving up our influence in the EU for not much or a negative benefit, but it's better than No Deal.

If the Deal isn't approved by Parliament, we could leave with no agreement about what happens (No Deal). This doesn't solve the Irish border problem at all, it leaves it for later (by default rather than by agreement) and with no backstop (so the risk of re-igniting the troubles in NI).

There is an obvious solution but since that's not what this thread is about I won't mention it.

Good summary, thank you.

If it’s between NI and Ireland, it messes up the Good Friday Agreement.

It's also illegal because of the withdrawal legislation.

In fairly simple terms.

Current deal, in EU, if you want to move for work to an EU country fine. you have to have a job in 3 months or you are kicked out.

May's deal you are allowed to spend no more than 90 days in any 6 month period in the schengen zone without a visa/etias depending on the small print to be agreed. You are not allowed to work without the appropriate visa (no alternative route accept Republic of Ireland and CTA).

Simple terms, you want to work as an MTB guide in the French alps, forget it. The French were very protective over who could work as a ski guide, outside the EU a British guides qualifications are worth nothing.

Want to retire to Spain, current deal fine, new deal, you will need to apply for a Spanish retirement visa.

EHIC cards will almost certainly not be valid unless an agreement is reached etc.

Now if Brexit was such a good idea why is Rees Mogg setting up in Dublin, why are various Brexiteers putting in hundreds of millions shorting British companies.

Now if Brexit was such a good idea why is Rees Mogg setting up in Dublin, why are various Brexiteers putting in hundreds of millions shorting British companies.

Because it is a good idea for them. If more people had the means to actually make more money as a result of Brexit (while making others worse off - if someone makes money others must lose) then the vote to leave would have been much higher than 52%

Why not leave and try to come up with something better instead?

People have listed a number of reasons above why leaving puts the UK in a worse position, because we will lose the trading advantages we have as part of the EU. You are suggesting we should abandon these real, concrete advantages, so we can "try" to come up with something better? And we will negotiate these advantageous new trade deals on our own against behemoths like the USA and China?
Let me think about your proposal...

That Liam Fox Tweet is amazing. What an utter tool.

That Liam Fox Tweet is amazing. What an utter tool.

Ahh don’t forget the ‘disgraced’ bit , gotta get the tools title right.

But the OPs question is right what is the ‘deal’

I dont think a transition period agreement and a bit of hope of a future something is actually a ‘deal’

A deal is normally something that has a desired and stateable outcome, I may be missing something but I’m not sure I’ve seen the real important bit on how we trade after the transition actually set in concrete.

Why would you have seen that DoD? This "deal/agreement" is only to set out the terms of our withdrawal from the EU (ie, how much we still need to pay to cover any pre-existing commitments, how long we can continue to trade on current terms under a transition agreement, and what to do in the event that a solution to having a hard border in NI cannot be found). Any negotiation on future trade deals will only start after we have left.

"Any negotiation on future trade deals will only start after we have left" .... both the EU and the Customs Union that we might be in if the backstop is implemented.

I’m not disagreeing but the reality is no deal has been agreed other than an extension with less rights of the current membership and no option to exit without agreement from the other party.

I just don’t think this really deserves the term ‘Deal’.

Can a mod spellcheck the title..

Please?

Its doin me ed in.

“In detailed discussion today the cabinet has agreed our collective position of the future of our negotiation with the EU”

What does this mean ?

Nothing whatsoever, as 5 minutes later half the cabinet had quit in protest over what a rubbish deal it is.

the only certainty in any of this, on 29th March without anything being done the UK crashes out the EU and Dover will collapse within hours. All those cross channel hauliers, there permits are revoked and UK trucks are banned from EU.

I may be missing something but I’m not sure I’ve seen the real important bit on how we trade after the transition actually set in concrete.

You've not missed anything. We don't. We need to start working that out after we've left. A glorious future awaits us trading with the rest of the world, we just need to start from scratch.

the only certainty in any of this, on 29th March without anything being done the UK crashes out the EU and Dover will collapse within hours.

Projections are that a 2 minute delay at Dover will result in 20 mile tailbacks inside of a day.

On trade
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/22/eu-trade-talks-australia-new-zealand-brexit-commonwealth
Who is negotiating trade deals while we screw about