What does the Withdrawal Agreement say and what happens next?

(Written on Friday 16th November 2018)

No doubt anyone has escaped the frenzy that is Brexit over the past few days. Theresa May has made the significant breakthrough of securing a deal with the EU and securing cabinet approval for the deal. In this post, I will address the Withdrawal Agreement and explore the various articles and clauses contained within the deal. I will then discuss the forward path from now onwards.

The Withdrawal Agreement is a 585 page document that outlines outcomes from security co-operation to the contentious backstop agreement. Everyone will have their own opinions regarding each clause so I will endeavour to address each clause from an economic and practical standpoint. It astounds me that the document is so large but be so vague in language. We know the impact of uncertainty. The Pound is at its most volatile since June 2016 and this further uncertainty is further going to affect the UK economy as well as investment into the nation.

The Backstop Arrangement:

This has probably been the most politicised issue contained within the Withdrawal Agreement. There has been much argument with regards to what border where and this Backstop included within the Agreement has seen two senior Cabinet members resign.

The backstop states that the United Kingdom would remain a) a part of a single Customs Territory (like I said in my previous posts, a renamed customs union membership) with the EU but b) certain goods from Northern Ireland would be subject to checks when entering Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales).

This poses two key issues for Brexiteers. Firstly, the United Kingdom will become what Boris Johnson has referred to as a 'Vassal state' to the EU where the UK blindly accepts the EU rulebook without any say on those rules. If anything, that puts the UK in a weaker position than it is today, so it also becomes unacceptable to most parliamentarians and citizens. Some Brexiteers argue that the article stating certain goods will be subject to checks across the Irish Border means there will be a de facto border down the Irish sea breaking apart the Union of the United Kingdom. Now, whilst I myself accept that this isn't reinforcing the idea that the United Kingdom is a single customs territory, I do not see this as breaching a red line. Mrs May has reiterated the notion that this is a Backstop arrangement and a worst case scenario but nonetheless, it would represent a border down the Irish Border and I can accept a Unionist's position that that is unacceptable. On one hand, the backstop does ensure there is no border between the Republic and Northern Ireland and does ensure frictionless trade, the deal does state the possibility of a border down the Irish Sea and that is what is causing an enormous ruffle. The DUP, rather surprisingly, supported and cheered on Corbyn in the Commons just yesterday which was an unbelievable sight to say but rather indicative of their attitude towards this deal. Finally, neither the backstop nor the transition period have a clear ending point. The transition period could potentially continue to December 2099 and the backstop can only be ended if both the EU and UK agree to it. This also has resulted in enormous discomfort from many Brexiteers who see this as a potential way of avoiding leaving the EU. Overall, not many are happy with this Backstop.

Trade:

What is key to note is that this deal was never meant to contain details regarding the future trade relationship between the EU and UK but this Agreement does include the overall intentions with regards to the relationship.

Our other devolved nations:

What is quite surprising to note is that neither Scotland or Wales got a mention in this massive 585 page document whereas Northern Ireland got a comparatively hefty 100 mentions. The SNP, Ruth Davidson and David Mundell all said they would strongly oppose any deal that would threaten the Union of the United Kingdom, whilst some interpret the Agreement as doing just that, others such as Mr Mundell disagree. Fishing has also been a key issue for Scots who want to regulate their own fishing region however, any mention of fishing is to say that it will be discussed during the Transition Period.

I must admit that this point is rather more curious, Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson both stated that any threat to the Union would see strong opposal from the Scottish Tories. Furthermore, they both threatened to resign should that take place and since Dominic Raab and the DUP cited the threat of breaking up the Union, it shows the ambiguity of the clause that neither Mr Mundell or Ms Davidson have yet to resign.

Borders:

Both parties have used positive language within this agreement in terms of the movement of trade and people, stating both parties intention to have a seamless ability for people to move to the European bloc and back but, as you can expect, nothing has been agreed. As much as positive language is nice to hear, it isn't terribly helpful so you can bet shipping corporations aren't exactly confident in the end result of the deal.

Security Co-operation:

This agreement explicitly states that after 31st December 2020, the UK will no longer have access to the same extradition treaty that applies to the EU or access to the EU's vast database of fingerprints and more. The agreement states that the UK and EU must agree a treaty to share information however, the EU is incredibly protective of its data and handing it over to non-member states so I wouldn't hold my breath on any deal that provides comprehensive access to these databases.

Research Funding:

Currently, the UK receives around £1bn annually from the EU to fund scientific research and this funding is fundamentally essential to the UK universities and, of course, the UK will no longer be able to access these funding from January 2021 onwards but the agreement makes no mention about the future arrangements of such funding or even the future of EU students in the UK and vice versa as well as the future of the Erasmus+ program.

Whilst I have only highlighted some key aspects of the deal, it is important to explore these articles as they are could become part of UK legislation very shortly.

What happens now with the deal?:

Now this, unfortunately, is the more upsetting reality of this post. All this talk about a deal is all well and fine except this deal has to make it past the Commons in order to become part of UK legislation. Now, in my earlier Commons Arithmetic post, I stated the improbability of Parliament approving the deal put before us today. I will, however, run through the consequences either way.

If the deal is approved at the EU summit on Sunday 25th November, the deal will then have to pass through all European parliaments as well as the Commons. Most likely, if the EU approves the deal, the EU27 will also approve the deal and that part will be smooth sailing. However, due to May's lack of a majority and also the sheer distraught of the DUP at the sight of the deal, I would be surprised if this deal will pass through. Although not breaching clear red lines, the deal does reflect fears of some parliamentarians and for some, they can cry wolf, with the end goal of ending Mrs May's tenure as PM.

In such an event, not only if do we see a constitutional crisis where the executive is at odds with the legislative body and we can see, as the BBC outlines, four possible scenarios. 1) a second referendum 2) a general election 3) no deal 4) a renegotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement and 5) we just rescind Article 50.

So, let's address these options. First of all, a renegotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement is frankly ridiculous for many reasons, for example, we as a nation can cite the threat of our constitutional crisis and cry for a new negotiation but that undermines the whole initial negotiation. In essence, we are saying that we can negotiate bad deals and then, with the threat of collapse, beg for another deal. That isn't the way our society works and no matter how great the desire is to just end Brexit and move on, we have to be realistic and pragmatic. We cannot re-negotiate another Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.

Could we have a second referendum, well first of all, I believe that this entirely undermines the value of a vote and as much as I hate

the cliché, it's what the British people voted for, it is indeed the political and democratic declaration of the UK to leave the EU. No matter how close the margin, even if it was just 4%, Vote Leave gained an extra 1.5m votes than Remain and that is a significant number of votes and whilst some argue that we should've had a clear majority, our voting systems are designed to be majoritarian and that any vote that gains a majority is accepted.

Couldn't we just rescind Article 50? Wouldn't that just be easier? Well, Brexit has been enshrined into UK legislation. Brexit must happen. Legally, we would have to repeal this bill and that would cause a nightmare amongst the Brexiteers within the Commons as well as outrage the democratic voice of the people who demonstrated their desire to leave the EU in 2016. As easy as that would be, unfortunately, that would not be able to happen.

Could we just hold a General Election? Look, I'm not going to say we can't, because we can, but I just don't see the point. I understand that many want to have a debate about the options available to us but that's just going to divide our nation more than we are already. A General Election would see parties defined by Brexit and people's opinions already hardwired, we are just going to see Confirmation Bias demonstrated on a national scale whereby each citizen will highlight the flaws in the deal and not accept the reasonable and practical points of the deal. Finally, a new Government won't be able to re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement for the reasons outlined above so I don't see what holding a General Election would achieve

And then finally, No Deal, I have heard too many people say that the PM has presented a false choice for Brexit, I fundamentally disagree with that opinion. As I have already said, we cannot go back to the EU and re-negotiate either parts of the deal or even the entire deal itself. It undermines the negotiation process and as much as I sympathise with the desire to for each individual to achieve the aims with regards to Brexit, it just isn't possible. Now, in my opinion, I find it most likely that, out of all the five options outlined, that a no deal withdrawal will take place if the Withdrawal is voted down in the Commons. That is the only option that can feasibly and legally take place.

So, maybe we do need to prepare for a no deal Brexit. Yes, it would be damaging but this is a test for our democracy. The people have expressed the democratic will and it Parliament's duty to fulfil this will and so we must leave the EU. As much as I hate to eat my own words, we are now heading for a No Deal Brexit despite the Chancellor's almost denial of funds to prepare for such a situation at the Budget.

All of this is happening, and I am not placing the entirety of the blame on Corbyn, despite Corbyn saying at his Labour Conference (see Has Corbyn just provided May with a lifeline?) that if the Deal struck contains membership of a Customs Union (the single customs territory), then the Labour Party would support and back the PM's deal. I saw this as a glorious lifeline for the PM who no doubt strived to achieve such a deal. When presented with a deal containing membership of the Customs Union, the Labour Party flat out rejected the deal. This turnaround has left the Commons unable to reach a consensus and at danger of all the possibilities listed above. I put to you this question, do you trust the conviction of Corbyn enough to be PM?

What happens for the PM?:

Her position as Prime Minister is tenuous. There is no doubt about that. We have had two senior Cabinet ministers, Raab and McVey, resign over the Withdrawal Agreement. 20 Tory MPs have publicly declared that they have sent their letter of no confidence to the 1922 Committee and I believe since only 21 letters have been sent during the entire Brexit negotiation, yes, I know how tense that has been for all of us, I cannot visibly see how a further 27 letters or so would be written from this point onwards. The negotiations, for many, have been catastrophic and if only 21 letters have been written, then I have decided not to engage with the notion that the PM will face a leadership contest.

But that doesn't make her position any more stable. Once you have a cross party revolt against your leadership and government, you have hit a place of no return. Her position as PM is temporary and the clock is ticking with regards to her premiership. How long she will last is anyone's guess.

Her agreement of a semi-border down the Irish Sea has caused great concern amongst many, as we know, but I do want to stress, there is no time limit on any arrangements and that borders will be subject to checks which threatens the integrity of the Union and many hard line ideologists believe that is a direct threat to the basis of the United Kingdom.

Conclusion:What is deeply unsettling for myself is that I have no idea what is going to happen next. We as a nation have never faced such a political, economic and constitutional crisis as we do today. Not only is the uncertainty damaging this nation, but also it is affecting confidence in the nation as a whole and I'll be honest, I am at a loss as to what happens next, as I suspect are many others.