Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Moving Forward Pt.4 (Draft).

A direct continuation of Part Three; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_13.html

In that post I looked at how from the EU and the British government's side the Brexit negotiations have been smooth, easy and highly organised.

What is making things seem so complicated are the actions of British Remoaners.

These Remoaners are engaged in a campaign to block Brexit. Their main tactic has been to make the Brexit process as difficult as possible. In the hope that people will simply give up.

I went on to look at why this type of Remoaner is massively over represented within the British Parliament.

British Parliamentarians are absolutely terrified of power being restored to the British Parliament. It means they will actually have to do a day's work. Rather than claiming credit for laws passed by the EU.

I also looked at why, having being completely out manoeuvred by Prime Minister May, the SNP find themselves in an impossible position.

Of having to stop Brexit. Or admit to voters that the SNP's entire reason for being is a lie.

There is also another party in British politics absolutely committed to blocking Brexit. Sadly for reasons that are far more sinister. And nowhere near as sophisticated.

The Labour Party: At the June 8th 2017 (8/6/17) General Election the Labour Party were on course for an absolute disaster. Losing potentially up to 200 seats. Wiping them out as a British political party.

In the eyes of voters the Labour Party had become seen as so absolutely hopeless it started to swing back in their favour. They emerged as a potential protest vote.

A way for voters to ensure a Conservative government. But one chastened rather than arrogant with a majority of 200 to 300 seats.

As a result the Labour Party actually ended up gaining 30 seats. Leaving them 56 seats behind the Conservatives. And 60 seats short of a governing majority.

Unfortunately the Labour Party continue to be absolutely hopeless.

So they took finishing second, by a significant margin, to mean they were the most popular political party in all of Britain. And would soon be in power.

The Labour Party's official position is that in order to seize power they simply need to bring down the current government. They believe that they will then be appointed as the government without the need for voters to be consulted in an election.

In order to achieve this the Labour Party would need to build a, never before seen in British politics, six party coalition. Made up of all of Britain's Parliamentary parties. Except for the Conservatives.

That elaborate coalition would still only have a majority of just 3 seats.

Significantly less than the 16 seat majority of the current Conservative government, backed by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Either unaware or unfazed by the impossibility of the task the Labour Party have approached the Withdrawal Agreement in exactly the same way they have approached every political issue in Britain since the June 2017 General Election.

An opportunity to bring down the government and seize power.

A prime example of the Labour Party's lust for power at any cost was the June 14th 2017 (14/6/17) Grenfell Tower fire.

Let's pretend for a moment the Grenfell Tower fire didn't occur amid a spate of Islamist terror attacks against Britain.

Islamist terror attacks specifically designed to aid the Labour Party. In order to weaken Britain's position during Brexit.

Let us also pretend for a moment that the Grenfell Tower fire didn't start in the apartment of a man who attended the Al Maneer Mosque. Let us also pretend for a moment that the Al Maneer Mosque has produced no fewer than 19 Islamist terrorists.

Those 19 include multiple members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Including Choukri Ellekhlifi, Alexanda Kotey and Aine Davis.

Three of the so-called; "Beatles." Who, led by Mohammed - "Jihadi John" - Emwazi were specifically tasked with murdering western hostages.

Let's also pretend for a moment that the Kensington & Chelsea Parliamentary seat in which Grenfell Tower stands hadn't just been won, for Labour by Emma Dent Coad. By a margin of just 20 votes.

A margin so narrow it would normally trigger an automatic investigation into electoral fraud.

Let us also pretend the Grenfell Tower prevented the automatic investigation into Emma Dent Coad's election. Despite 14 people having since being convicted for lying about living in Grenfell Tower. And therefore their right to vote for Emma Dent Coad.

Let's also pretend that the Labour Party didn't extensively use fire as a weapon during the August 2011 riots. Particularly in the Croydon Central constituency.

Let us also pretend that use of fire didn't lead to a massive expansion of rented, social housing in the Croydon Central Constituency. Demographic change which allowed Labour to finally win the seat at the 2017 General Election.

Unseating Gavin Barwell. Who is now Prime Minister May's Chief-of-Staff. Tasked with getting the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament.

Let us also pretend for a moment that within London fire safety is exclusively the responsibility of the Mayor. That would be Mayor Sadiq Khan of the Labour Party.

Let's also pretend for a moment that Emma Dent Coad's previous job was sitting on the Mayor's Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

Finally let us pretend for a moment that under the Labour Mayor's Fire and Emergency Planning Authority London Fire Brigade flatly refused to investigate the cause of the Grenfell Tower fire for a full 18 months.

Even if you can pretend all those things did not happen the Labour Party still treated the Grenfell Tower as nothing more than an opportunity to bring down the government and seize power.

As with the Withdrawal Agreement the Labour Party's main approach to the Grenfell Tower fire was to spread transparent lies.

For example the Labour Party have, and continue to claim that cladding was fitted to Grenfell Tower for purely cosmetic reasons.

In fact the cladding was fitted as part of an insulation system to reduce heat loss and allow Britain to meet its greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions targets.

Emissions targets the Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair signed Britain up to in 2007. Apparently by mistake.

Probably the most pernicious lie the Labour Party told about Grenfell Tower was that hundreds had been killed in the fire. Only a Defence of the Realm Notice (D-Notice) had been issued by Prime Minister May to keep it a secret.

The issuing of D-Notice's are not made public. However to be effective they have to be sent to every media outlet in the country. They are actually issued on a formal register which all news outlets have access to.

So people, particularly the people I associate with, know the moment a D-Notice has been issued. And why it has been issued.

No D-Notice was issued, nor has ever been issued in relation to any aspect of the Grenfell Tower fire.

Fuelled by the lies the Labour Party then moved into open violence and intimidation.

On June 17th (17/6/17) the Labour Party organised a local; "Day of Rage" protest within Kensington & Chelsea.

As was the plan this rapidly turned into a riot. With the local Town Hall being attacked causing hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage. And Conservative members of the local council being physically assaulted.

Although it flopped badly the Labour Party also tried to organise a national; "Day of Rage" protest on June 20th (20/6/17). Targeting the State Opening of Parliament that day.

In her speech to Parliament during the State Opening the Queen wore a hat bearing the; "Starry Plough" insignia. A powerful symbol amongst Irish Republicans.

Particularly for the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). The same INLA which assassinated British MP Airey Neave within the Parliament building in March 1979.

The newly minted Duchess of Sussex has since been dispatched to work closely with the Al Maneer Mosque. So now we all know about its links to Islamist terrorism. 

The Labour Party's strategy towards the Withdrawal Agreement is simply to reject it. Without even reading it.

Their hope is that the failure of the Withdrawal Agreement to be passed by Parliament will be enough to justify a No Confidence vote in the government. Which Labour hope will bring down the government and put them in power.

Labour are assuming people are all too stupid to notice that Prime Minister May has efficiently negotiated an extremely strong Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.

It's just that Prime Minister May has a very narrow Parliamentary majority. And the Labour Party will vote against whatever she does.

Following the Christmas recess Labour seem to have backed off from their demand that they simply be appointed as the next government. Without the need for voters to be consulted in a General Election.

Sadly this doesn't seem to be because Labour have finally figured out that in order to secure a majority of just three they need to pull off the impossible task of forming a six party coalition.

Instead the change seems to be the result of the Labour Party realising that the public simply won't stand for them being appointed as the government. Rather like some sort of Communist dictatorship.

So, in public at least Labour are now calling for a General Election.

The 2017 General Election campaign was one of the shortest in history. Starting on April 18th (18/4/17) it lasted for 51 days.

Assuming a fresh General Election can be called for next Monday, January 21st (21/1/19). Also assuming the General Election campaign will be as brief as the 2017 campaign.

You're still not talking about an election result before March 15th (15/3/19). 14 days before Britain leaves the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).

The results of the 2017 General Election weren't actually known until June 26th (26/6/17). 18 days after the vote was held.

So Labour's plan is not just for Britain to crash out of the EU on March 29th (29/3/19) with No Deal.

It's for Britain to crash out with No Deal and no government.


Obviously still a draft. So more to come.

12:55 on 14/1/19 (UK date).

Edited at around 17:05 on 14/1/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

As I've said the effects of Britain leaving the EU with No Deal will be absolutely catastrophic.

It is the equivalent of Britain placing itself under a complete economic blockade.

This is so serious that it constitutes a Defence of the Realm issue. Rather than a party political issue.

As such, during the debate British Parliamentarians have been provided with numerous reminders of the consequences of their actions.

Starting on December 19th (19/12/18) Gatwick Airport, Britain's second largest, was closed for 36 hours. Due to the presence of drones.

This short period of disruption saw more than 1,000 flights cancelled and the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of passengers disrupted.

No sooner had Gatwick Airport re-opened then Birmingham Airport was forced to close. On December 23rd (23/12/18).

Again cancelling hundreds of flights and disrupting the travel plans of thousands of passengers. This shutdown was blamed on a communications failure.

The Parliamentary debate on the Withdrawal Agreement formally resumed on January 8th (8/1/19). Following the Christmas recess.

This was marked by Heathrow Airport, Britain's largest being closed for several hours. Again as the result of renewed drone activity.

This severe disruption gave Parliamentarians a small taste of the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.

They are not talking about shutting down a few of Britain's airports for a few hours. They're proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely.

On December 21st (21/12/18) the Grande Tema (Great Theme) cargo shipped was hijacked by Nigerian pirates. In the Thames Estuary of all places.

On December 22nd (22/12/18) it was raided by British Special Operations Forces (SOF's). The four hijackers were detained for immigration offences.

This cargo ship hijacking further highlighted to British Parliamentarians the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.

They are not just proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely. They are also proposing shutting down all of Britain's seaports indefinitely.

Cargo ships are truly the lifeblood of the global economy.

The fact the hijackers were Nigerian and charged with immigration offences highlights what Britain stands to gain from leaving the EU.

Finally being able to restrict the number of EU migrants Britain will be able to be more welcoming to migrants from Commonwealth nations such as Nigeria.

The involvement of SOF's goes into a not particularly relevant tangent of military matters.

For the past four years I've been heavily involved in the war in Syria and Iraq. It should tell you how serious the prospect of a No Deal Brexit is that I've been pulled off the line there to deal with this.

British Parliamentarians are currently considered a greater threat to Britain than ISIL or Al Qaeda.

I may have received an anonymous phonecall telling me the new date for the Withdrawal Agreement vote. Before British Parliamentarians were told that the original vote was going to be cancelled.

British Parliamentarians continue to be upset about being shown their place in this world of ours.

However Iraq and Syria are far from the only nations former US President Barack Obama destroyed. He also destroyed Libya. Which in turn destroyed Mali. Which in turn destroyed Nigeria.

In counter-terrorism terms Nigeria is too big to fail. Even if US SOF's are understandably getting fed up of having to do all the work. There's simply not enough of them to repair all the damage Obama did.

On Thursday January 10th (10/1/19) the M6 Motorway had to be closed near Stoke-on-Trent. After 27 irregular migrants/asylum seekers leapt from a cargo truck onto the roadway.

Again this further highlights to British Parliamentarians the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.

They are not just proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely. They are also no just proposing shutting down all of Britain's seaports indefinitely.

British Parliamentarians are also proposing shutting down all road freight into, within and out of the UK. Indefinitely.

As a general rule; If you buy something in a shop then it got there on a truck.

The fact the story involved irregular migrants/asylum seekers also highlights something else Britain stands to gain from leaving the EU.

Being unable to impose restrictions on EU migrants Britain has been overwhelmed. This has left the British public very inhospitable to both Commonwealth migrants and genuine asylum seekers.

Something which has been made worse by the EU's policy of abusing the refugee system to allow in economic migrants.

Finally being able to restrict the number of EU migrants Britain will be able to be more welcoming to genuine refugees.

Also I think US National Security Adviser John Bolton really needs to explain why Iran is suddenly producing so many economic migrants.

Both the Grande Tema and the M6 stories also highlight that absolutely massive concession Prime Minister May was able to win from the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Northern Ireland will be able to stay in a single market with the EU. While at the same time being able to do away with the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.

The tactics being used by Remoaners and particularly the Labour Party closely resemble terrorism.

Specifically the tactics used by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) during The Troubles in Northern Ireland.

In the 1980's and 1990's PIRA conducted a series of bombing campaigns on the British mainland. Unlike in Northern Ireland the purpose of these bombings was not to kill. Instead the purpose to was to damage and disrupt the British economy.

Take for example this footage of the June 15th 1996 (15/6/96) PIRA bombing of Manchester; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl2ye6sPG8

It starts with the police cordoning off and evacuating the area around where the bomb was planted. It then shows attempts to defuse the bomb. Finally it shows police helicopter footage focused on the bomb as it explodes.

The reason the police were able to do this wasn't due to some amazing counter-terrorism operation against PIRA.

It's because PIRA phoned them up. Not only to tell them where the bomb had been placed but exactly when it was going to detonate.

PIRA even left the hazard lights on the vehicle on. Making it impossible for the police to miss.

The goal for PIRA was the immense economic damage the massive bomb to Manchester's physical infrastructure.

The 1996 PIRA bombing of Manchester was part of a wider campaign that also targeted the cities of London and Warrington.

Collectively they caused the bankruptcy of the Lloyd's of London insurance group. A jewel in the crown of Britain's City of London financial sector.

When anti-terrorism laws were overhauled following 9/11 the specific offence of Economic Terrorism was created. Specifically to outlaw this type of tactic.

The damage to the British economy caused by a No Deal Brexit far outstrips that of any PIRA bombing campaign.

It is this damage that the Remoaners and the Labour Party are threatening to do unless we give in and give them what they want.

As such the Remoaners and the Labour Party could well find themselves classed as terrorists.

I'm sure authorities in Gibraltar can remind them of what that entails.

Certainly over the Christmas recess, particularly the Labour Party have been reminded of their past crimes. Crimes they are completely reliant on Britain to continue to provide protection for to help them avoid prosecution.

For example on New Years Eve (31/12/18) there was a massive warehouse fire in the Croydon North Constituency.

Labour used the massive fires of the August 2011 riots to springboard from Croydon North into Croydon Central. Having failed by legal means to do so at every election since 1997.

The Croydon warehouse fire was quickly outshone by an Islamist knife attack at Manchester's Victoria Railway Station.

This served as a reminder of the alliance between Islamist terrorist groups and the Labour Party. Particularly the May 22nd 2017 (22/5/17) bombing of the Manchester Evening News Arena (MENA).

The fact it was a knife attack also reference the June 3rd 2017 (3/6/17) London Bridge terror attack. Along with what a mess Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan is making of London.

During the London Bridge terror attack there was actually another mass stabbing in the Vauxhall area of London.

It took people a while to work out this wasn't part of the terror attack. It was just one of your typical, everyday knife attacks in London.

The Labour Party's position is that as soon as they seize power they will be able to negotiate a much better deal with the EU.

The noises coming out of the EU over the Christmas recess very much contradict Labour's claim. 

The general position is that whomever is in charge if Britain rejects this current Withdrawal Agreement the EU will scrap it. Britain will never again be offered a deal this good.

There is particular hostility towards the Labour Party. They are seen as falling very far short of the standards of a government the EU would be able to have any dealings with.

The criticism of the Labour Party by Poland is particularly worth bearing in mind.

As I've said Britain has never been anyone's favourite member of the EU. It's more a case of Britain being tolerated because of the money it brings.

The EU budget is a very complicated business. However you could almost get away with saying that Britain's contribution to the EU budget goes directly to Poland. Making Poland the closest thing Britain has to an ally in the EU.

On January 4th (4/1/19) five teenage girls were killed in a fire in an Escape Room in Koszalin in Poland.

Exactly like the Grenfell Tower fire it was initially blamed on an electrical fault. It then rapidly emerged that this was a lie. The fire was not caused by an electrical fault.

A man has since been arrested for causing the danger of the fire.

On Friday January 11th (11/1/19) the UK Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox expressed disbelief at Poland's position. Through the air pollution death of Ella Kissi-Debrah.

So on Sunday (13/1/19) Poland re-stated its position. With the stabbing of Gdansk Mayor Pawel Adamowicz.

Given the current murder rate it seems Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan is the only person in London who hasn't been stabbed.

Gdansk is a massively important place in the history of the Trade Union movement. It is the birthplace of the Solidarity Trade Union. Founded by Lech Walesa, the second President of Poland and still a massive national hero in the country.

Today (14/1/19) it's been announced that the UK Attorney General has dropped his opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement. And that Pawel Adamowicz has died.

So I think its fair to assume that under a Labour government Britain would be dead to the EU.

17:20 on 14/1/19 (UK date).

Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Moving Forward Pt.3 (Draft).

A direct continuation of Part Two; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_11.html

In that post I looked at how Remoaners are engaged in a campaign to block Brexit. Their main tactic has been to make the Brexit process as difficult as possible. In the hope that people will simply give up.

I also looked at how this type of Remoaner is massively over represented within the British Parliament.

British Parliamentarians are absolutely terrified of power being restored to the British Parliament. It means they will actually have to do a day's work. Rather than claiming credit for laws passed by the EU.

This prospect is a particular problem for parties which appeal to voters of the grounds they are; "Progressive." Fighting to protect workers rights, social justice and the environment etc.

For the past 40 years legislation in those areas has been exclusively the work of the EU. British political parties involvement has been limited to trying to steal the credit.

Of these self-styled "progressive" parties there is one that stands to lose far more than most from Brexit.

The Scottish National Party (SNP): It's long been the claim of all opposition parties that Prime Minister May is an incompetent Prime Minister and a terrible negotiator.

In that case it is an incompetent Prime Minister and a terrible negotiator who has absolutely run rings around the SNP.

In February 2017 Britain passed the European Union Act into law. This established that Britain will be leaving the EU. 

However there remained the question of when exactly Britain would put the European Union act into effect by formally notifying the EU. What is known as; "Article 50."

In early March 2017 Prime Minister May put around a rumour that this would happen on March 13th (13/3/17).

That rumour prompted SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon to try and steal Prime Minister May's thunder. Sturgeon called her own address to the nation for March 13th (13/3/17).

Sturgeon used her address to the nation to declare that post-Brexit Scotland would hold another referendum on independence from Britain. In order for an independent Scotland to join the EU.

With this declaration Nicola Sturgeon did not steal anyone's thunder.

There was no announcement on Article 50 being activated. There was never any plan for an announcement on that day. It was simply a rumour put around to trick the SNP.

Having being tricked into the announcement the SNP were then lumbered with this promise to hold a Scottish Independence referendum. As they headed into the June 2017 General Election.

That June 2017 General Election is often considered Prime Minister May's greatest mistake. Leading to her Conservative Party losing seats and even their Parliamentary majority.

In Scotland however the 2017 General Election was a massive success for the Conservative Party. And an absolute bloodbath for the SNP.

Due, almost exclusively to their Remain stance and promise of an independence referendum the SNP lost 21 of their 56 seats. With 12 of those seats being lost to the Conservatives.

Any one of those 12 seats would represent the first Conservative gain in Scotland since 1997.

Despite this crushing defeat at the 2017 General Election the SNP are still lumbered with this promise to respond to Brexit by holding a Scottish Independence referendum.

The annual budget of Scotland is around GB£33bn.

At the moment of Brexit Scotland will lose GB£76m of that money. The money which is paid to Scotland by the EU.

The moment Scotland leaves the UK, as the SNP are pushing for, it will lose the GB£29bn block grant it receives from, predominately England.

Scotland will also have to take on extra costs which are currently met by the UK. On things like defence and diplomacy. Membership fees for the UN and its subsidiary bodies etc.

This means that overnight Scotland will be paying out at least 3,000% more money than it raises in revenue.

Locked out of the international financial system an Independent Scotland will then have to go through the long process of applying to be a new member of the EU. It is far from guaranteed that such an application will be successful.

As part of their effort to block Brexit the SNP brought a case before the Court of European Justice.

It asked the Court to decide whether, once activated Article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn. Or whether such a more would require the consent of the other members of the EU.

On December 10th (10/12/18) the Court of European Justice ruled that Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn.

In considering this case the Court had to balance two competing sets of interests;

The right of a nation to change it's mind and withdraw Article 50. Against the right of other members of the EU to be protected from a nation invoking then revoking Article 50. Simply as a negotiating tactic on another issue.

Within the EU there are currently a number of disputes which could see Article 50 invoked as a negotiating tactic.

There is of course the threat to suspend Hungary's voting rights. The conventional wisdom is that Poland will veto such a move. For the simple reason that Poland needs Hungary to veto a similar move to suspend Poland's voting rights.

The dispute I'm most interested in though is over Italy's budget.

EU rules prevent member states from having a budget with a deficit larger than 2%. In October 2018 the Italian government passed a budget with a deficit of 2.6%. This was rejected by the EU leading to an ongoing stand-off between Italy and the EU.

The Italian government has suggested, in the past, that it might invoke Article 50 as part of the budget dispute with the EU.

I'm particularly interested in Italy's dispute here because it allows me to say that the Court ruling will see Article 50 go up and down more often than Berlusconi's trousers.

It says a lot that the EU would rather deal with all that. Than have to deal with the SNP.

If an independent Scotland does, by some miracle, win the support of 26 EU members the conventional wisdom is that Spain will automatically veto its EU membership bid. To prevent similar moves by Spain's Catalonia region.

Even if it is accepted as an EU member the first thing Scotland will have to do is impose a long and draconian policy of austerity. In order to bring its spending deficit down from 3,000%.

So the SNP find themselves in the impossible position of having to stop Brexit. Or admit to voters that their entire reason for existing is a lie.

Whether the Withdrawal Agreement is passed or not Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).

This will be the end of the road for the Remoaners.

They will no longer be able to campaign to keep Britain in the EU. They will only be able to campaign for Britain to join the EU as a new member. Something which is far from guaranteed.

Given the way the British Parliament has behaved in the debate over the Withdrawal Agreement the EU may well decide that British politics is not up to the standard required of EU members.



Obviously still a draft. So more to come.

16:25 on 13/1/19 (UK date).

Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Moving Forward Pt.2 (Draft).

A direct continuation of Part One; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_10.html

In that post I looked at how the Withdrawal Agreement passes the tests of honouring the 2016 referendum to leave the EU.

I also looked at how the objections to the Withdrawal Agreement raised by British Parliamentarians are almost entirely false.

As such it is clear that Britain must adopt the Withdrawal Agreement. Without further delay.

The Withdrawal Agreement represents a multi-dimensional treaty between 28 nations. As such I don't think it's really possible to describe it as; "Simple."

However in terms of negotiating multi-dimensional treaties between nations the Withdrawal Agreement and the process it has been arrived at has been smooth, organised and easy.

One similar negotiation process I've been heavily involved in is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Specifically efforts to draw up a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol. Known as the Durban Platform.

This process was designed to take four years. Spread out across quarterly and, in the later stages monthly meetings.

The final set of meetings was supposed to be the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21). This was scheduled to end on December 11th 2015 (11/12/15).

Like pretty much every UNFCCC meeting it spectacularly failed to end on schedule. Instead it had to be extended, at the last minute into an extra day.

On that extra, final day several versions of the 27 page agreement were circulated over the course of around five hours. Giving negotiators just minutes to read each new version, assess it and negotiate changes.

Amid the stress and chaos the US negotiating team screwed up.

At the last minute they re-wrote the fourth paragraph of Article 4 of what became the Paris Agreement. This change allows China and India - the 2nd and 3rd largest emitters of greenhouse gases (ghg's) - to continue growing their emissions by as much as they like.

Failing in any way to combat Climate Change the Paris Agreement was adopted simply because, at that point everyone just wanted to go home and go to sleep.

Amid both UNFCCC and EU circles there is a famous story of how then Prime Minister Tony Blair signed Britain up to the EU's emissions trading scheme.

Going into the 2007 EU Summit Britain only wanted to sign up the non-commercial sectors of its economy to the scheme. Private homes rather than businesses.

The final session of that EU Summit went on for more than 36 hours straight. Without breaks for sleep or even meals.

By the end of it former Prime Minister Blair had signed up all sectors of the UK economy, including business, to the EU emissions trading scheme.

The story has it that sleep deprived and highly stressed former Prime Minister Blair simply no longer had any idea what he was signing Britain up to.

That story, of course has been put about by former Prime Minister Blair's political rivals.

However people familiar with this type of negotiation have absolutely no trouble believing it.

In contrast the negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement have reached a comprehensive and mutually beneficial consensus. Some five months before the final deadline of March 29th (29/3/19).

A feat that is virtually unheard of in negotiations of this type.

The only thing that is making the Brexit process difficult is Britain's seemingly idiotic Parliamentarians.

The good news is that the moment the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted things immediately get a whole lot easier.

For a host of reasons;

A Covenant Held: Throughout the referendum campaign current British Prime Minister Theresa May kept an extremely low profile. Earning her the nickname; "The Submarine."

Eventually Theresa May surfaced. Quietly coming out on the side of Remain.

When Theresa May became the Prime Minister tasked with guiding Britain through the Brexit process this created a lot of suspicion amongst Brexiteers, those who voted to Leave.

They were concerned that Prime Minister May would behave like all the other Remoaner politicians. Abuse her position to block Brexit and impose her views on the electorate.

A system of government that is commonly known as; "Tyranny."

As it turns out Prime Minister May has done absolutely nothing of the sort. She has put her own, personal views to one side. Instead taking on the views and concerns of the British people, both Leave and Remain. Even the completely insane ones.

Prime Minister May has then taken the views of the British electorate and presented them to the EU during the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations. Winning significant concessions from the EU in the process.

This type selflessness is exactly the quality that voters in a democracy should look for in their politicians, leaders and public servants.

It's the other 642 self-serving crooks in Parliament Britain wants to be getting rid of.

Regardless of whether the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted or not Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).  This will remove any question of Prime Minister May betraying the Brexiteers in an effort to keep Britain within the EU.

The Brexiteers, of course can continue to be suspicious of how close a relationship with the EU Prime Minister May is trying to build.

However they will no longer be able to accuse her of trying to block Brexit.

The Remoaners: These are the people who voted to Remain in the EU.

Previously I've compared the Four Pillars of EU membership to the Five Pillars of Islam. For many Remoaners membership of the EU is something which has taken on almost religious levels of significance and devotion.

For many Remoaners continued membership of the EU is a deep existential issue. One that defines their very existence. It is was determines that they are Good People. Superior in every way to the Bad People who voted to Leave.

These Remoaners have, in no way accepted the result of the referendum.

From the moment the referendum result was announced they have engaged in a campaign to keep Britain within the EU. Their main strategy has been to obstruct, obfuscate and confuse the Brexit process at every step.

The Remoaners objective is to make everything so extremely difficult that people will simply give up and Britain will remain in the EU.

This type of Remoaner is massively over represented within the British Parliament.

That is despite the entire House of Commons being elected in 2017 on a clear mandate to honour the 2016 referendum and ensure Britain leaves the EU.

With the exception of the SNP's 35 MP's, The Liberal Democats 12 MP's, Plaid Cymru's 4 MP's and the Green Party's 1 MP.

The reason why Remoaners are massively over represented in Parliament is actually quite simple.

Leaving the EU will restore power to the British Parliament. Bizarre as it sounds the biggest losers from power being restored to the British Parliament are actually British Parliamentarians.

Currently laws in Britain are passed by the EU. They then automatically become British laws through the 1972 European Communities Act.

British Parliamentarians only involvement in this process to receive a text message or email telling them that the law has changed.

At this point British Parliamentarians look up from their expense claims just long enough to boast to voters about what they've achieved.

And why their 'achievement' means they should be allowed to keep their GB£77,000 a year 'job.'

For evidence of this you only need to look at the Withdrawal Agreement. This contain lengthy lists of British laws that must remain in place after Britain has left the EU.

However those laws are not referenced using the British Act of Parliament which created them. No British Act of Parliament created them.

Instead the laws are referenced under the prefix; "ED." Meaning; "European Directive."

This is the main reason why Britain can't simply leave the EU with No Deal.

No British Parliamentarian has actually done a day's work in about 40 years. 

Prior to the Christmas recess the Remoaners tactics have focused on obfuscation and spreading confusion.

For example claiming the government has no Plan B. When, in fact the Withdrawal Agreement not only contains a Plan B it also contains a Plan C.

Likewise claiming the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland contains no legally binding guarantees. When, in fact it not only contains multiple legally binding guarantees it also contains a dispute resolution mechanism to enforce those legally binding guarantees.

Another particularly popular Remoaner tactic has been to confuse matters by demanding the government lays out Britain's future relationship with the EU.

Throwing around almost nonsense terms such as; "Iceland Plus," Canada Max," Norway Plus Plus or; "Liechtensteiner Coffee Table!"

The purpose of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish Britain's future relationship with the EU.

Instead its purpose is to establish, through the Transition Period a properly structured and time limited forum to establish Britain's future relationship with the EU.

If Britain's Parliamentarians wish to discuss Britain's future relationship with the EU then they must adopt the Withdrawal Agreement. So the Transition Period negotiations can begin without delay.

It must be said that since the Christmas recess the Remoaners seem to have become increasingly aware that they're tactics are not working. The public can easily see through what are obvious lies.

So instead the Remoaners have shifted tactics to open aggression and intimidation.

For example on Tuesday, January 8th (8/1/19) Remoaners amended a Finance Bill. The amendment prevents the government from spending money in the event of a No Deal Brexit without first winning a time consuming vote in Parliament.

This amendment will not prevent Britain leaving the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). Nor will it prevent the severe economic crisis of a No Deal Brexit. All it will do is prevent the government from deploying resources to alleviate the immediate effects of that economic crisis.

The Remoaners hope is that the threat of this is so horrifying that it will scare the government into submission. Overturning the 2017 European Union Act, keeping Britain within the EU.

On Wednesday, January 9th (9/1/19) Remoaners amended the Withdrawal Bill itself. To force the government to return to Parliament within three days of a potential defeat to inform Parliamentarians of the next steps.

Again this amendment will not prevent Britain leaving the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). Nor will it prevent the severe economic crisis of a No Deal Brexit.

All the amendment means is that Parliament will have to wait three days rather than three weeks to be told that the Withdrawal Agreement bill will be reintroduced. At a time of the government's choosing.

After all Remoaners have made it abundantly clear that it is perfectly acceptable to force people to keep voting on something until they come up with the correct answer.

The Remoaners calculation is that being forced to make this announcement in three days rather than three weeks will trigger significant anger against the government. Triggering a Parliamentary motion of no confidence in the government.

The Remoaners hope is that the threat of this is so horrifying that it will scare the government into submission. Overturning the 2017 European Union Act, keeping Britain within the EU.

The real scandal of Wednesday's (9/1/19) amendment is that Parliamentary rules are quite clear.

Only a minister of the government may introduce amendments to a government bill. Dominic Grieve who tabled this amendment is not a government minister.

The supposedly impartial  Speaker of the Commons, Remoaner John Bercow was informed by his Chief Clerk and legal adviser of this rule. And that Grieve was not able to table this amendment.

However John Bercow completely and wilfully ignored the rules of Parliamentary democracy and allowed the amendment to go ahead any way.

These tyrannical tactics of threats, intimidation and, frankly law breaking have absolutely no place in a supposedly civilised democracy.


Obviously still a draft. So more to come.

17:00 on 11/1/19 (UK date).

Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Moving Forward (Draft).

On June 23rd 2016 (23/6/16) Britain voted to leave the European Union (EU). The so-called; "Brexit."

On November 25th 2018 (25/11/18) the British government reached a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.

It is published here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

On December 4th 2018 (4/12/18) this Withdrawal Agreement was introduced to the British Parliament in the form of a bill.

Here in 2019 Britain's Parliamentarians are still debating whether to adopt the bill as law.

I covered the Withdrawal Agreement, in some detail, across four parts.

Part One: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_46.html

Part Two: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_30.html

Part Three: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_9.html

Part Four: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement.html

Across those four parts I hope I made one thing clear;

Britain needs to adopt this Withdrawal Agreement. Without further delay.

I am not just saying that because the effects of a No Deal Brexit would be catastrophic. I'm saying that because this is actually an extraordinarily good deal.

In February 2017 Britain adopted into law the 2017 European Union Act. This established that Britain will be leaving the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

Parliament rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement will, in no way change the fact that Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).

Crucially Parliament adopting the Withdrawal Agreement will also, in no way change the fact that Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).

Under the Withdrawal Agreement from March 29th (29/1/19) Britain will cease to be member of the EU.

Instead it will be considered a Third Country by the EU. The same status the EU grants to the other 165 members of the United Nations (UN) who are not also members of the EU.

No longer being a member of the EU Britain will be entirely free to negotiate Free Trade agreements with both the EU and non-EU nations.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement Britain will end its contributions to the EU budget. Beyond the commitment to the end of the current EU budget period in 2020. Something former Prime Minister David Cameron legally committed the UK to back in 2013.

The Withdrawal Agreement also returns Britain's share of EU assets it has contributed to and owns part of. Assets which the Withdrawal Agreement values at around GB£21bn. Dependent on the performance of complex financial instruments. Such as the entire UK economy.

The Withdrawal Agreement also establishes the terms on which the UK can buy services from the EU in the future. A typical relationship in which any nation buys services from another nation as a normal part of international relations.

In a break from those standard terms the Withdrawal Agreement actually allows Britain to tell the EU what its bill for buying these services will be. Rather than the EU simply sending the UK a bill.

One of the main factors which prompted people to vote to leave the EU was a desire to take back control. To restore the supremacy of British Laws and British Courts.

The Withdrawal Agreement does not immediately achieve this. However it does not set out to. No nation would want to suddenly scrap 40 years worth of laws overnight.

In discussing the Withdrawal Agreement I explained the catastrophic effect such a move would have on the ability to move people and goods. Between the UK and not just the EU but the entire World. It is akin to the UK placing itself under total economic blockade.

That is just the immediate problem. Scrapping 40 years worth of laws overnight would also mean that your contract of employment suddenly becomes invalid. Likewise your car insurance or home insurance would suddenly no longer be valid.

Not the sort of thing you only want to discover the moment after you've been flooded out.

Instead the Withdrawal Agreement keeps those laws in place for a two year Transition Period. To allow for alternative arrangements to be made.

The two year Transition Period can be extended. If alternative arrangements are still not in place by then the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland takes effect.

This immediately replaces the EU laws with identical British laws. It then allows Britain to replace those laws with independently passed British laws. On an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis. Providing those laws do not offer less protection than they laws they replace. "Backsliding" in the jargon.

What independent laws Britain will be able to pass in the future is really too complex a question for me, or anyone to answer now. It is really dependent on what sort of trade deal Britain wants to have with the EU in the future.

Any Free Trade agreement requires some level of harmonisation of laws governing safety and quality standards. One of the main reasons why the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) took 7 years to negotiate was making sure Canadian and EU products adhered to the same safety and quality standards.

The Withdrawal Agreement most certainly does not take the can of these questions and simply kick it down the road.

Instead it establishes a structured and time limited forum for them to be addressed. Free from confusions and complications. Such as the unravelling of complex financial instruments.

During the Transition Period the UK will continue to adhere to all EU laws. Including the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. As such it will not immediately bring an end to migration into the UK from the EU. Nor expel EU migrants already within the UK.

However it puts in strong deterrents to limit that migration to just short-term, seasonal migrants. The supply of which you wouldn't immediately want to block overnight.

The Withdrawal Agreement also allows the UK to refuse entry to or deport a whole range of EU migrants. People with criminal convictions or who would place an undue burden on Britain's healthcare system and public services by being too sick to or unwilling to work.

If the Transition Period gives way to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Britain will immediately do away with the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. While Northern Ireland will continue to remain in a single market with the EU.

In discussing this concession Britain has won from the EU I compared it to a Muslim being allowed to say; "Oh, but there are other gods, except Allah."

I don't think that should be considered offensive. The concession Britain has been able to win from the EU here is very much of that scale and severity.

So the Withdrawal Agreement most certainly meets the tests to determine whether it honours the result of the 2016 referendum. It also wins significant concessions for Britain from the EU without giving much away.

The Withdrawal Agreement is also extremely comprehensive. The more you get into the fine technical detail of it the more it reads like a highly skilled negotiator's work of art.

For example Article 5(2) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland protects the rights of EU citizens to travel through Northern Ireland to and from the Republic of Ireland. For example if they want to fly into Derry City Airport in Northern Ireland to visit the border town of Muff in the Republic of Ireland.

These EU citizens in transit will have extremely limited contact with Northern Irish society. They will not take up jobs and they will not use public services such as housing and healthcare. Their only real contact will be putting money into the local economy through hotel bills, taxi rides and meals out.

So Northern Ireland blocking these EU citizens in transit is not just the question nobody asked. It's the question no-one would even think of asking.

Yet the Withdrawal Agreement is so comprehensive it has not only thought to ask the question it has made provision to answer it.

The objections to the Withdrawal Agreement by British Parliamentarians and the media are often entirely false.

Not just false but false to the point of being utterly ridiculous.

Take for example the latest demand being made by the Labour Party. Particularly through John Mann MP.

They wish to see the Withdrawal Agreement amended so it ensures that the protections for UK workers remain the same as they are under EU law.

During the Transition Period the UK will adhere to all EU laws. Including the laws governing the protection of workers.

If the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked the UK will be able to replace those laws with independently passed British laws. However those laws will not be allowed to backslide. Offer less protection to workers.

So the question John Mann MP and the Labour Party are raising is one that the British government thought of years ago and have addressed during the negotiation.

The government have then published the results in the Withdrawal Agreement in black and white for John Mann and anyone else to see.

Something the UK government did, apparently long before the Labour Party even thought to ask the question.

Another popular objection. Famously put forward by Conservative MP Esther McVey is that the Withdrawal Agreement contains No Plan B.

The Withdrawal Agreement lays out a Plan A. The two year Transition Period.

The Withdrawal Agreement then lays out a Plan B. Extending the Transition Period.

Finally the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a Plan C. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.

Objecting to Plan C because you want to draw up a Plan B raises serious questions about whether you've been tested for dyslexia.

It is on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland that the objections have been their most ridiculous.

The protocol allows the UK to trade with the rest of the World on the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Rules underpinned by the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).

Hard Brexiteers want to prevent Britain trading on the WTO terms. So Britain can trade on WTO rules.

It is also claimed that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does not contain legally binding guarantees.

The Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland both most certainly do contain legally binding guarantees. They also provide a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure those legally binding guarantees are enforced.

A dispute resolution mechanism which is heavily biased in Britain's favour.

What neither the Withdrawal Agreement nor the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland do is stamp those legally binding guarantees on every article on every page of the documents.

That is because it is completely legally unnecessary to do so.

It would also probably double the length of documents which already seem to be too long and complicated for British Parliamentarians to comprehend.

The only legitimate objections I've seen raised are those of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

They are concerned by the Regulatory Divergence created by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Rules which are different on the British mainland from rules in Northern Ireland.

However even here I think the DUP are being overly sensitive.

Even before the start of The Troubles let alone the 1998 Belfast Agreement there was significant regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.

It is, after all Schedule VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 which inhibits the free movement of British citizens between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.

If you were trying to exploit Brexit to further the cause of a united Ireland the advice you would give to the DUP is very simple.

You would advise the DUP to reject the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and pursue a No Deal Brexit.

A No Deal Brexit will not repeal the Belfast Agreement. Including the legal obligation that places on Northern Ireland to hold a binding public referendum on unification with the Republic of Ireland.

What a No Deal Brexit will do is create an economic catastrophe that will make unification with the Republic of Ireland look very attractive to Northern Irish voters of all stripes.


Obviously still a draft. So more to come.

18:25 on 10/1/19 (UK date).

Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Part One.

As Christmas 2018 fast approaches Britain finds itself still captivated by its exit from the European Union (EU). The Brexit.

On November 25th (25/11/18) the British government finally reached a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. It was almost immediately published here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

On December 4th (4/12/18) this Withdrawal Agreement was introduced to the British Parliament in the form of a bill. Britain's Parliament is scheduled to vote on adopting the Withdrawal Agreement as law on Tuesday, December 11th (11/12/18).

I remember over Christmas 2016 discussing Brexit with my mother. The one who had picked exactly the right moment to retire from a long career as a Civil Service lawyer.

Perhaps it was the excitement of getting out just in time that caused her to forget that the Republic of Ireland now recognises gay marriage. For the purposes of citizenship and immigration law.

The conversation began with her saying something along the lines of;

"I know I'm the only one in this family who voted to Remain."

At which point I replied;

"I think I'm the only one in the country who doesn't have a strong opinion either way."

I voted to Leave. For the rather vague reason that I don't think Britain's political culture is really compatible with the political culture of the other 27 members of the EU. Over the decades this conflict has caused a lot of hostility and disruption on all sides.

Therefore I think it is better for all concerned for Britain to leave the EU. However then go onto enjoy a close and cooperative relationship with the EU.

There has been absolutely nothing about this negotiation process that has changed my opinion.

Being motivated in my vote by a sort of vague, general sense makes it quite hard for me to get excited about, or even interested in the details of Britain's relationship with the EU.

It also makes it quite hard for me to see what are the specific areas that people seem to be getting so excited about.

Despite this over the past couple of days I decided to bite the bullet. And actually read the entire Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

I should start by making quite clear that the consequences of Britain leaving the EU without any form of agreement would be almost unfathomably catastrophic. For Britain.

Within British politics a faction has emerged who are really pushing for just this "No Deal" scenario. They have become known as; "Hard Brexiteers."

These Hard Brexiteers are really led by the Parliamentary "European Research Group (ERG)." Made up of people such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson.

The Hard Brexiteers claim that there is no need for Britain to negotiate with the EU at all. Britain's relationship with the EU is merely based on trade.

That might have been true back in 1973 when Britain joined the European Economic Community (EEC).

However in the 45 years since then - and particularly following the 1993 Maastricht Treaty - Britain has deeply enmeshed its laws and legal architecture with that on what is now the EU.

The Hard Brexiteers say that Britain can simply leave the EU with No Deal and immediately start to trade with the rest of the World under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

It can't.

Britain is not currently a member of the WTO. Britain is a member of the EU. The EU is a member of the WTO.

In July 2018 Britain began the process of joining the WTO in its own right. I hesitate to guess how long that will take. The so-called "Doha Round" of WTO negotiations dragged on for 14 years. Before being abandoned.

I appreciate that phrases like; "Legal Architecture" seem so vague and abstract as to be absolutely meaningless to most people. However it truly does affect almost every aspect of your daily life. On a daily basis.

Take for example a simple trip to a supermarket.

Before being built the supermarket building would have had to obtain a host of permits and legal certificates. Chiefly planning permission.

All of the materials used in the construction of the supermarket would also have had to obtain a host of permits and legal certificates. To show that they are safe and manufactured to a certain standard of quality.

Before opening its doors to let the public in the supermarket would have had to obtain another host of permits and legal certificates. Such as health and safety certificates and public liability insurance. Provided by a certified insurance provider.

All of the goods on sale in the supermarket would have had to obtain a host of permits and legal certificates. When they're grown, manufactured and transported.

Even the cardboard packets and metal cans the goods are sold in require a separate raft of permits and legal certificates. Again to prove that they are safe and manufactured to a certain standard of quality.

Then there are the employees of the supermarket. Before they can start work their employer must obtain another raft of permits and legal certificates. Showing the staff are being provided with a safe working environment. That their pay is not too low and their working hours are not too long.

So although it sounds abstract this legal architecture is really what makes society, society. To simply tear it up overnight would lead to absolute anarchy. And not the good kind.

The only examples I can think of where this much of society has been suddenly removed in an instant are nations which have undergone violent revolutions. Recently Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Ukraine.

Given their dictators I think that for Tunisia and Egypt it was worth the effort. However both nations were immediately plunged into economic collapses which required them to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Libya and Ukraine both remain under the supervision of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The laws and legislative architecture that Britain currently shares with the EU are governed by more than 40 EU Agencies. Split into 4 groups.

I could go through each of these agencies and explain why they are important.

However the Withdrawal Agreement itself is 599 pages long. I'm trying to make this series of posts significantly shorter than that.

So instead I will focus on the ones that leaving with No Deal will cause immediate and catastrophic problems for Britain;

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX): This agency regulates all of the EU's borders. Both internal and external. It's work includes the issuing and recognition of identity and transit documents.

In short it is membership of FRONTEX which means other EU nations recognise a British passport as a British passport.

Something which is kind of important if you're sending a British truck driver to pick something up from a warehouse in Germany and bring it back through France to the UK.

The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA): This agency regulates all shipping into and out of the EU. Its work includes issuing safety certificates which allow ships to dock at EU ports.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA): This agency regulates all air travel into, out of and across the EU. Its work includes issuing safety certificates which allow aircraft to take off from EU airports, land at EU airports and fly over EU airspace.

The European Railway Agency (ERA): This agency regulates rail travel into, out of and across the EU. Part of its work includes issuing safety certificates that allow trains to use EU tracks, signals and stations.

The European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (EU-LISA): This snappily titled agency regulates the sharing of data across the EU. It's work underpins the work of all the other agencies.

For example FRONTEX may regulate the issuing and recognition of identity and transit documents. However it is EU-LISA which allows a border guard to log onto their computer to actually check a passport.

If Britain leaves these agencies with No Deal then overnight planes will not be able to take-off and land. Ships will not be able to dock. You know the Channel Tunnel which allows trains to travel between Britain and France. It will have to shut down.

British passport holders will not even be able to physically walk between two EU member states without fear of arrest and deportation.

This will not just affect travel between Britain and the EU. It will affect all travel between Britain and the rest of the World.

As with the WTO Britain is not currently recognised as a certificate issuer at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Instead the EU is recognised as a certificate issuer. Britain is a member of the EU.

Likewise Britain is not currently recognised as a certificate issuer at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The EU is recognised as a certificate issuer. Britain is a member of the EU.

So Britain leaving the EU with No Deal is not a matter of prices rising slightly in the shops. Or there being slightly longer queues at ports.

It is a matter of Britain being placed under a total economic blockade.

Rather like how Saudi Arabia currently has Yemen under blockade. Or like how Israel has Gaza under blockade. Where no ships are allowed to dock and its Israeli border guards who say what trucks are allowed in and when.

The difference is that this would be Britain placing itself under total economic blockade. By choice.

In order to avoid this, frankly, apocalyptic reality the Withdrawal Agreement establishes as a; "Transition Period."

Assuming the British Parliament adopts the agreement this Transition Period will begin on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19). It will then end on December 31st 2020 (31/12/20).

During this transition Britain will continue to recognise and be recognised by all the EU Agencies. Not just the ones I've listed above. The purpose of this Transition Period is to provide time for Britain to establish agencies of its own.

This shouldn't be much of a problem.

Britain already has a Department of the Interior (Home Office). This regulates Britain's borders including the issuing and recognition of identity and transit documents.

Likewise Britain already has a Department of Transport (Ministry of Transport). This regulates all aspects of transport such as road travel, air travel, rail travel and sea travel.

These government agencies are all already recognised by the EU, and by extension international bodies, as certificate issuers.

For example it might the EU that sets the rules for vehicles travelling on roads. However in Britain it is actually the Ministry of Transport which carries out the tests and issues cars their MOT certificates.

So Britain establishing its own, independent agencies is really matter of filing in some forms. It's just a hell of a lot of forms that need to be filed with an awful lot of people.

Having looked at what the Withdrawal Agreement sets out to do. Along with the consequences of it not being adopted I'm now going to attempt to look at how it affects the issues that seem so important to so many people.

Does Leave Mean Leave?: The people of Britain voted to leave the EU on June 23rd 2016 (23/6/16). Since then it seems that Britain's politicians and news media have talked about nothing else.

Nearly two and a half years and an entire General Election later its hard to imagine that Britain voting to leave the EU would finally translate into Britain actually leaving the EU.

So I'm happy to confirm that regardless of whether the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted or not Britain will leave the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

From that date Britain will not be recognised as an EU Member State. It's Parliament will not be recognised as a Parliament of an EU Member State.

Instead Britain will be considered a Third Country by the EU. Just like the EU recognises the US, Canada or any of the 165 nations of the United Nations (UN) who are not members of the EU as Third Countries.

No longer being a member of the EU Britain will immediately be free to seek out new relationships with non-EU countries. Things such as trade deals. However those trade deals will not be able to go into effect until the end of the Transition Period.

Taking Back Control: One of the main things that prompted people to vote to the leave the EU was a desire to restore the supremacy of British Laws and British Courts.

In this area the Withdrawal Agreement fails to deliver. In order to continue to recognised and be recognised by these various EU Agencies Britain has to continue to adhere to EU law. As adjudicated by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

However taking back control is not what the Withdrawal Agreement is intended to. Instead it is intended to provided a bit of breathing space and establish a mechanism by which Britain can begin the extremely complex process of taking back control.

To use the analogy of a revolution this is the moment the dictator finally steps down. Handing power to a constitutional committee to prepare for free, fair and democratic elections in a year to 18 months time.

No More Money For the EU: Another significant factor which motivated British people to vote to leave the EU was a desire for Britain's money to be spent here at home. Rather than being given to the EU so they could spend it on gender studies in Lithuania.

The issue of money Britain will send to the EU in the future has been complicated by the issue of the money Britain is already committed to send to the EU.

The EU operates on a 6 year budget period. The current budget period began in 2014. It ends in 2020.

In 2013 then British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to give around GB£10bn to the EU for every year of the current budget. Around GB£60bn in total. Then Prime Minister Cameron did this in the full knowledge that he was about to call a referendum on Britain leaving the EU before 2020.

This commitment for Britain to continue to contribute to the EU budget is fully legally binding. However Britain can offset some of the total by claiming credits for a refund of its share of EU assets. Things like EU buildings which Britain helped to build. This has become known as; "The Divorce Bill."

In an effort to get themselves more airtime the Hard Brexiteers have seized upon this Divorce Bill. They've tried to confuse people by equating it to the money Britain will send to the EU in the future.

The Hard Brexiteers insist that Britain should simply refuse to pay this divorce bill and walk away from the EU. In the process giving up Britain's share of EU assets.

In doing this the Hard Brexiteers remind me of a British TV show called; "Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away."

This is a fly-on-the-wall documentary about Bailiffs collecting debts. Every story in every episode is almost exactly the same;

It begins with the bailiffs arriving and the debtor refusing to pay them. Often citing some completely made up legal mumbo jumbo to claim that they are not liable for the debt.

In the middle of the story the debtor finally accepts that they are indeed liable for the debt.

Almost every story ends with the debtor paying up. Or having their property seized.

The Hard Brexiteers are the debtor in every story, in every episode of Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away.

From the way I've explained it in a couple of short paragraphs it is perhaps hard to understand why the Withdrawal Agreement runs to over 300 pages. Not counting annexes and protocols.

One of the main reasons why the agreement is so long is the sheer complexity of the EU's financial arrangements.

I say that former Prime Minister Cameron committed GB£50bn to the EU. That is just an estimate. Former Prime Minister Cameron didn't actually commit a figure. Instead he committed an equation.

Although the budget period runs for 6 years contributions to the EU are paid yearly. They are a percentage of the contributing nations' Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the year. This means that they are actually paid a year in arrears.

Likewise many of the EU assets Britain is owed a share of are tied up in what are known as; "Complex Financial Instruments." Things like the pension funds, unemployment insurance funds and social security funds for people employed by the EU.

In leaving the EU Britain will take on the costs for Britons employed by the EU. Taking the payments out of the EU budget. Reducing Britain's commitment to the EU budget.

Fortunately both the Transition Period and the Budget Period last until 2020. So rather than trying untangle all these complex financial instruments Britain will just pay into the EU budget as normal until 2020.

However the financial year 2020 doesn't actually end until April 2021. Plus budget contributions are paid in arrears.

So many, many pages of the Withdrawal Agreement a taken up with the untanglement of these complex financial instruments.

The final figure is an estimated GB£39bn. However that is dependent on things like the performance of Britain's GDP and the performance of the EU's various pensions and insurance funds.

The Hard Brexiteers are furious that this figure, or funding formula, has been agreed before Britain's future trade agreements with the EU have been confirmed.

They believe that Britain should use the threat of non-payment as leverage in those trade negotiations.

I think the Hard Brexiteers have very much overestimated the value of that leverage.

After all Britain is wholly and undeniably legally obligated to pay that debt. If Britain refuses it could seriously go to the point of bailiff's seizing property to cover the value of the debt.

For years France's Bordeaux Airport has been in dispute with the EU over illegal state aid. On November 9th (9/11/18) bailiffs seized a Boeing 737 belonging to Ryanair in an effort to make Bordeaux Airport repay what the EU has determined to be illegal state aid.

If you've watched the British TV show you would know that bailiffs always prefer cash. However if negotiations break down that Boeing 737 can, and will be sold in order to pay Bordeaux Airport's debt to the EU.

Although the financial formula has been agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement the payment schedule and the setting of the exact figures will not take place until after the end of the Transition Period. So there is still some room for Britain to use the issue as leverage during future trade talks.

As for future British payments to the EU that really depends on Britain's future relationship with the EU. However the Withdrawal Agreement does provide some provision for Britain paying to use the services or request information from the various EU agencies after the Transition Period.

Simply Britain will just have to pay the EU agency for the service it receives. What Britain will not be doing is also paying to subsidise, say Poland's, use of the same agency.

This is a normal part of everyday international relations. For example Britain pays Oman around GB£150m. In return the Royal Navy get to use Oman's Duqm Port.

Migration: I think another thing which motivated people to vote to leave was a desire to curb migration from the EU into Britain.

I honestly only voted in the referendum because I thought it would be less hassle than explaining why I didn't. However in making my decision this migration issue was always at the back of my mind.

In order to become a member of the EU a nation must agree to the EU's four core values. Known as the; "Four Freedoms." One of these is the Free Movement of People. The freedom of all EU citizens to move between any EU member state as if they were a citizen of that nation.

This freedom has its roots in economics. In which people are considered simply to be; "Human Capital." So the EU's Free Movement of People is actually intended to allow economists to freely move this human capital across borders.

This means that EU citizens are actually only free to move between member states for the purposes of finding work.

I've gotten to know a fair few EU citizens who have been refused entry to various EU states on the grounds they could not legitimately prove that they were seeking work. They though are the sort of people who are known to the authorities across the EU and beyond.

However in the vast majority of cases this means that no EU member state has any control whatsoever over the number and type of EU citizens migrating to and from their country. Rather like how the US state of Kentucky has no control over migrant workers entering the state from Massachusetts.

Over recent decades EU leaders seem to have decided that they don't have enough of this cheap human capital.

So they've been abusing the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees to import more of it from across Africa, the Middle-East and South & Central America. Once these migrants apply for political asylum in an EU member state they are free to move around all the EU member states.

This mass migration has a really disruptive and damaging effect.

In developed nations which migrants tend to travel to it places a huge strain on infrastructure and public services.

This is particularly true of relatively small nations like Britain. There mass migration particularly strains things like the supply of housing, school places and healthcare.

Britain is unique within the EU in that has a free at the point of use National Health Service (NHS). This accounts for around 35% of all the money the British government spends each year.

Under EU rules Britain has to pay for the medical treatment of every EU citizen residing in Britain.

Under the extremely easy to abuse European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) system Britain's NHS apparently also has to pay for the medical treatment of every person in every eastern European EU member state. Even the ones who've never set foot in Britain.

This constant supply of cheap labour drives down the wages and therefore living standards of the domestic population. The ready access to skilled workers also allows employers to abdicate their responsibility to train the next generation of young people.

Mass migration also causes serious problems for the less developed nations migrants tend to travel from.

I have often mentioned the Romanian government's campaign begging Romanian parents not to abandon their children in order to go and find work in places like Britain. In recent years this campaign has shifted to the Romanian government accepting that it can't stop people abandoning their children. It just begs they notify the proper authorities before they abandon them.

Poland is now being forced to accept migrant workers from Ukraine. In order to fill all the jobs left by Polish workers who've left the country to go and work in places like Britain.

Britain is actually in something of a privileged position when it comes to migration. It has a long and productive history and culture of accepting migrants from what was the British Empire and is now the British Commonwealth. Up until the point Britain joined the EU all Commonwealth citizens were actually considered British citizens.

Britain has been completely unable to control the flow of EU migrants. So in an effort to control the problems of mass migration it has been forced to focus on Commonwealth migrants.

This has led to things like the recent Windrush Scandal. This essentially saw British citizens who are not white being deported to make way for EU citizens who are white.

So its very easy to make the argument that when it comes to the UK the EU's free movement policy is racist.

However when proponents of free movement such as George Soros look at migrants they don't see people. All they see is human capital.

As such I didn't vote to leave in order to end migration. I voted to leave in order to allow Britain the freedom to bring in sensible migration curbs and controls.

During the Transition Period Britain will adhere to all EU laws. Including the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. So for that period the Withdrawal Agreement fails to deliver any controls on migration. However it does provide a de facto deterrent for migration.

Alongside the Transition Period the Withdrawal Agreement lays out what will happen after the end of the Transition Period.

In what seems like an effort to just confuse people the layout of the document places the parameters after the Transition Period before the parameters of the Transition Period. Effectively forcing you to read the thing from back to front.

At the end of the Transition Period EU citizens who are settled in Britain will be allowed to stay. As will British citizens who are settled in EU nations. The purpose is to allow them to time to get right with the law. Essentially by becoming citizens of the country in which they live.

I know that people like to talk big in the pub and on Twitter. However I don't think anyone seriously wants people who arrived as legal migrants being deported en mass in some sort of Nazi pogrom.

The thing is that the period you need to reside in a country to qualify for settled status is longer than the Transition Period. So migrants arriving after the start of the Transition Period won't qualify.

This should deter all but seasonal migrant workers. The sort of people who are not going to place long term pressure on housing. Nor want to send their children to school. If they're too sick to seek work Britain can actually deny them both residency and NHS medical treatment.

If you are familiar with the sectors of the economy which rely on seasonal workers you would know that you don't want to suddenly cut off the supply.

The other area which seems of importance to people is the Northern Ireland Backstop. I will be covering that in part two.

However I should point out that the plan is for all issues to be resolved by the end of the Transition Period. If not the Withdrawal Agreement allows for the Transition Period to be extended multiple times.

So the Northern Ireland Backstop isn't so much a contingency as a contingency for the contingency.

A Plan C if you like.


Since originally posting the above on Monday December 10th (10/12/18) the UK Parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Agreement was cancelled. Over serious and legitimate fears it would be rejected.

Pushing Britain into the No Deal scenario.

Cancellation of the vote prompted Hard Brexiteers who are members of the Conservative Party to table a motion of no confidence in their party leader. The Prime Minister Theresa May.

That motion of no confidence was voted on by the Conservative Partyon December 12th (12/12/18). It was defeated.

This means that Theresa May remains the leader of the Conservative Party. No further motions of no confidence can tabled for the next 12 months.

However Theresa May could sill resign. At this point I'd be seriously tempted to force Jacob Rees-Mogg to take over. In order to give him a long overdue reality check.

Although she cannot be forced out as Conservative Party leader Theresa May could still be forced out as Prime Minister. By Parliament tabling a motion of no confidence leading to a Parliamentary vote.

Once again pushing Britain into the No Deal scenario.

Meanwhile the World, and particularly the EU is looking on in absolute bafflement. Collectively trying to work out what the hell is wrong with Britain's Parliamentarians.

A significant part of this was the December 11th (11/12/18) gun attack in Strasbourg, France. Right by the EU Parliament which was in session at the time.

Part of that relates to the wars in the Middle-East. Even if there was absolutely nothing else happening I still couldn't tell you about that. Just rest assured those who need to know do.

The majority of it though relates to the Withdrawal Agreement.

For example during the Transition Period the UK is allowed to refuse entry to and deport certain EU citizens. Under certain, specific circumstances. With his 27 criminal convictions acquired across several nations the Strasbourg gunman is a perfect case study of the type of EU citizen who will not be allowed into the UK.

With troops once again coming out onto the streets in full combat gear its primarily relates to the Northern Ireland Backstop Protocol. Intended to prevent a militarised, hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Before I explain exactly how it relates I first have to explain the Northern Ireland Backstop Protocol. Which is what I'm going to do in Part Two.


(Originally Posted at 21:30 on 12/12/18 (UK date)).

18:30 on 9/1/19 (UK date).

Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Part Two.

A direct continuation of Part One; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_46.html

The other area which seems of importance to people is the Northern Ireland Backstop. Or to give it its formal name; "The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland."

I should start by pointing out that the Northern Ireland Backstop is not technically part of the Withdrawal Agreement. Instead it is a legally binding protocol under the Withdrawal Agreement.

I know that sounds pedantic. However legally binding protocols under agreements and other statutory instruments rely almost exclusively on precision and pedantry.

The Withdrawal Agreement sets out a Transition Period. Plan A is that all outstanding issues on Britain's future relationship with the EU will be resolved during this Transition Period.

However if that Plan A fails the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a contingency plan. The Transition Period can be extended. The Plan B.

If both Plan A and Plan B fail the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a third contingency. This is the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. The Plan C.

So when British MP's such as Esther McVey appear on TV demanding Prime Minister May abandons the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. In order to draw up a Plan B.

Well, it really gives you a headache. Particularly when they're not immediately corrected by the interviewer.

In order to understand why the Ireland/Northern Ireland border is such a contentious issue you could go back to the Norman, Strongbow invasion of Ireland in 1170. Or; "Brentry, Annex One" as I believe it's now known.

You could also look at Martin Luther's decision to nail his Ninety-Five Theses to the doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany. In October 1517.

It might also be worth looking at the British Act of Settlement of 1701.

After all the Act of Settlement introduced the Royal Prerogative. Due to the antics of Gina Miller in the 2016; "Enemies of the People" case it was found the Royal Prerogative could not be used to negotiate Brexit. Giving British Parliamentarians this oh, so meaningful say of theirs.

However what is most relevant to the Ireland/Northern Ireland border issue is the so-called; "Good Friday Agreement." Or, to give it its formal name; "The 1998 Belfast Agreement."

The purpose of the 1998 Belfast Agreement was to bring about the end of a period known as; "The Troubles."

Displaying typical British understatement The Troubles was a low-intensity, but often brutal civil war. Fought across Northern Ireland, the British Mainland and even as far as Spain and Gibraltar.

One of the main provisions of the Belfast Agreement is the removal of any physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

At the time of the Belfast Agreement the Ireland/Northern Ireland border was operated by the British Military. Border posts and checkpoints were small military bases.

Rather like the network of Control Points the Turkish Military currently operates in the Sudetenland area of Syria. Or the network of Observation Posts the US Military is currently establishing in the Shangri-La area of Syria. In order to deter a Turkish invasion and occupation.

The border posts the British Military operated along the Ireland/Northern Ireland border during The Troubles were remarkably similar to the Observation Posts the Israeli Military operates along the Palestinian West Bank Separation Wall.

This militarised border created a very aggressive and hostile environment. Which was extremely stressful for all involved. Particularly civilians.

There is a British comedian, Patrick Kielty. He is married to British TV presenter Cat Deeley, who Americans may have heard of. Patrick Kielty grew up in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. He can tell you a story about how, having just passed his driving test he crashed his car.

Emerging from the wreck Patrick Kielty was not presented with sympathetic firefighters or paramedics. Instead he was confronted by British soldiers in full combat gear. Leaping from their armoured vehicle to point assault rifles in his face. Forcing him to prove he wasn't a terrorist. He was just a teenage boy who'd made a fool of himself.

Another of the provisions of the Belfast Agreement was the withdrawal of British troops. They were replaced by the newly formed Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Although a civilian police force the PSNI are still extremely heavily armed.

If there's a terror attack in Europe or a mass shooting in America you will often see police SWAT teams running about in combat gear. That is how the PSNI conduct routine, day-to-day patrols. Particularly in the rural border areas.

So no-one wants to see a return to the aggressive and hostile environment of a so-called; "Hard Border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

However while soldiers and their toys are part of the issue it is not the main issue with the border.

The overarching ethos of the Belfast Agreement was to use economic prosperity as a mechanism for peace.

For his own reasons Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to have absolutely no interest in explaining this to people. However if he were to attempt to he would probably reach for Greek Mythology. Particularly the battle between Poseidon and Athena.

Compared to other developed EU Member States Britain is relatively small. Compared to Britain as a whole Northern Ireland is absolutely tiny. With a population of just 1.8 million people. As with small island states Northern Ireland's small population means that it's never going to have a big economy.

When there's not much to go around everyone starts wondering if other people are taking more than their fair share. Leading to conflict. Particularly when members of one religious group think members of another religious group have absolutely no right to exist. Let alone a right to housing or food.

As far back as 1965 Protestant groups such as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) were operating paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland. To kidnap and kill Catholic civilians. Prior to founding the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Dr, Rev Ian Paisley was a member of the UVF.

However the widely recognised start of The Troubles was a massive riot in 1969 known as; "The Battle of the Bogside."

Relatively poor Catholic residents of the Bogside Housing Estate held a civil rights march. To protest the awarding of social housing to a single, Protestant woman. Over a homeless Catholic family. Relatively wealthy Protestants decided to mock the Catholics by rolling pennies down the Falls Road into the Bogside Estate.

So when the Protestant DUP play, at their rallies songs like; "Penny Lane" by the Beatles. Or "Penny Arcade" by Roy Orbison it has a very different meaning. As does the Beach Boys song; "Sloop John B."

At the time of the Battle of the Bogside policing in Northern Ireland was the responsibility of the almost exclusively Protestant Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). They were backed by the unpaid volunteers of the exclusively Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) known as; "The B-Specials."

The B-Specials were a Protestant paramilitary group. One authorised and backed by the British State.

The RUC and the B-Specials' response to the Battle of the Bogside was to open fire with heavy machine guns. Not just against the rioters but against all the houses in the Bogside Estate.

The first official fatality of The Troubles was a Catholic soldier in the British Army. Home on leave he was killed by a B-Special bullet from a Browning M2 machine gun. While standing on the balcony of his mother's home in the Davis Flats building.

In the eyes of the RUC and the B-Specials the fact he was serving in the British Army was apparently not enough to wash away the crime of being Catholic.

So officially the British Military was first deployed to Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic minority. From the Protestant RUC and B-Specials.

One of the British Military's first tasks was to disband the B-Specials. They were replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR). Who were hardly much better.

Particularly under Prime Minister Margret Thatcher the British mainland went through an extensive revision of the history of The Troubles. On the mainland the focus is very much on Catholic paramilitary groups. Such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).

These Catholic paramilitaries simply did not exist at the start of The Troubles. The INLA were not formed until 1974. Five years after the Battle of the Bogside.

The primary purpose of removing the Ireland/Northern Ireland border under the Belfast Agreement is to boost Northern Ireland's economy by allowing for tariff-free trade.

The thinking being that as Northern Ireland's economy grows the sectarian divisions and conflict will reduce.

At the time of the Belfast Agreement Northern Irish society was deeply segregated. In a way that makes the US' Jim Crow-era look like a walk in the park.

The current UK Secretary of State (Chief Minister) for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley recently made a bit of a fool of herself. She declared that before taking up the post she didn't realise how deeply segregated society in Northern Ireland continues to be.

For example she didn't know that in Northern Irish politics almost all political parties have a religious affiliation. Catholic parties simply don't even attempt to campaign in Protestant areas. Likewise Protestant parties simply don't even attempt to campaign in Catholic areas.

At the time of the Belfast Agreement this segregation wasn't just social it was also physical. There were giant concrete barriers, known as; "Peace Walls" between Protestant and Catholic areas. In order to stop the residents of those areas from killing each other.

These Peace Walls were remarkably similar to the blast walls around the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq. They are also remarkably similar to the Separation Wall between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. The reason they are so similar is that both Iraq and Israel stole the idea from Northern Ireland.

Trade and employment have proven themselves to be very effective mechanisms for bridging these, literal segregation walls.

For example Dennis, the Protestant farmer may despise all Catholics. Yet he seems to get on rather well with Patrick, the Catholic farmer south of the border who buys his crops to feed his cows.

Likewise Patrick may hate all Protestants. Yet he seems to get on rather well with Kevin, the Protestant who runs the dairy north of the border which buys his cow's milk.

This sort of mechanism for peace is what Soda Stream were trying to achieve with their plant at Lehavim in the Israeli occupied West Bank. So I continue to be unimpressed by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) forcing the closure of the plant in March 2016.

Not that this post is really crying out for more tangents.

In Northern Ireland the Belfast Agreement has been a resounding success. The generation born after 1998 contains far fewer, just absolute headbangers.

The removal of the Ireland/Northern Ireland border has led to a significant boost in the economy. This has fuelled a growing middle-class, which both Catholic and Protestant, is more than happy to move out of the segregated and dilapidated social housing estates.

Things have improved to the point that back in 2014 I thought it was safe for me to start making jokes about The Troubles. In the context of the current war in Syria.

Amid the fury of the Brexit debate though I'm starting to think it might be time to update the codebook. "Dixie" and "Dollywood" are current front runners.

The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Known colloquially as; "The Northern Irish Backstop."

As I've mentioned the Plan A set out in the Withdrawal Agreement is for all outstanding issues to be resolved during the Transition Period.

If Plan A fails then the Withdrawal Agreement sets out a Plan B. The Transition Period will be extended.

It is only if both Plan A and Plan B fail the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, Plan C, will be invoked.

The moment that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked Britain, in its entirety will leave both the EU Single Market and the EU Customs Union.

However Northern Ireland will simultaneously adopt, under British law a set of rules that are almost identical to the rules of the EU Single Market.

There is though one huge and key difference. Northern Ireland will not adopt the EU Single Market rules regarding the Free Movement of People/Free Movement of Human Capital.

It is hard to overstate just how massive a concession from the EU Prime Minister May has been able to win on this point.

On Saturday December 8th (8/12/18) the coalition governing EU member state, Belgium collapsed. It was brought down by the N-VA Party in protest over the Free Movement of People.

December 12th (12/12/18) saw large, and at times violent protests in Budapest, capital of EU Member State Hungary. In protest against measures to tackle the Hungarian labour shortage caused by the Free Movement of People.

Despite the abolition of the Free Movement of People all citizens of Northern Ireland will continue to be dual nationals. Holding both British and Irish citizenship. As per the Belfast Agreement.

British and Irish nationals will also continue to be completely free to travel between and work within Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Under the terms of the 1923 Common Travel Area.

On the topic of irritating headaches Britain has two female comedians. Aisling Bea and Katherine Ryan. Both are Irish citizens. Since 2015 both of their entire acts have been built around how Brexit will force them out of Britain.

That is absolute rubbish. Both live and work in the UK under the Common Travel Area of 1923.

Quite how someone named Aisling Bea can forget she's Irish is completely beyond me.

The Common Travel Area of 1923 however only applies to British and Irish citizens. It does not apply to EU citizens residing in the Republic of Ireland.

The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does though contain a provision which grants EU citizens transit through Northern Ireland.

So if an EU citizen wants to fly into Derry City Airport in Northern Ireland in order to visit the border town of Muff in the Republic of Ireland. Possibly for no other reason than its got a really funny name. Derry City Airport has to allow them to do so.

I don't think Derry City Airport along with local car hire firms and even the most sectarian taxi drivers wouldn't want to turn away that tourist money.

So this transit provision is really the question that no-one asked. The protocol though has provided for the question should it ever arise.

Under the protocol Northern Ireland not will not join, nor remain part of the EU Single Market.

However the fact it will join a single market with the EU causes significant problems. Both for the British mainland and for the wider EU.

It risks turning Northern Ireland into a massive marketplace for smuggled goods. Both from the EU into the British mainland and from the British mainland, and by extension the wider World into the EU.

So to prevent this the British mainland will, simultaneously adopt, under British law a set of rules that are almost identical to the rules of the EU Customs Union.

If you wish to check exactly what the rules both Northern Ireland and the British mainland will be adopting Annexes 1 to 10 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland provide a 143 page list.

Despite the similarity of these rules under the protocol the British mainland will not join, nor remain part of the EU Customs Union.

Instead it will join special customs union with the EU of which it is the only member. I will endeavour to explain the extremely technical differences between the rules later on this post.

First though I should dispel one of the biggest myths about this customs union and the EU Customs Union.

Being a member of either this customs union or the EU Customs Union DOES NOT stop Britain reaching and implementing trade deals with countries outside of the EU.

Either customs union prevents Britain from doing tariff-free trade deals with countries outside of EU. It can still implement trade deals. However those deals must impose tariffs under the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) provisions of the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT). The legal basis on which the World Trade Organisation (WTO) operates.

The fact that the British mainland will be entering into a special, unique customs union is another absolutely massive concession British Prime Minister has been able to win from the EU.

As I mentioned in part one a significant thing which prompted British people to vote to leave the EU was a desire to take back control. To ruled by British laws, interpreted and enforced by British Courts.

The words used in the rules governing both the Northern Ireland single market and the British mainland customs union may be identical to the EU rules. However they are technically British laws. The EU has conceded that they can be interpreted and enforced solely by "competent" British Courts.

If the EU wishes to have a British Court ruling deemed incompetent it has to go through a lengthy and independent dispute resolution and arbitration process. During this process the ruling of the British Court stands.

By pushing for a No Deal scenario Hard Brexiteers want, as an alternative to have any points of law interpreted and ruled upon by the United Nation's International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Britain has absolutely no Judges sitting on the ICJ.

Britain has had a Judge on the ICJ since it was founded in 1945. Out of the Nuremberg Tribunals in Nazi war crimes.

However in November 2017 Britain was forced to withdraw its candidate to sit as a Judge on the ICJ. After the other members of the ICJ made it quite clear that they would not be supporting Britain.

Curiously this occurred at exactly the time the Hard Brexiteers were at their most vocal in the claim that Britain doesn't need to pay its divorce bill with the EU. And that the ICJ would certainly rule in Britain's favour.

Prime Minister May has also been able to extract another significant concession from the EU.

The rules governing both the Northern Ireland single market and the British mainland customs union can be replaced by laws passed exclusively by the British Parliament. On an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis. With the consent of the EU through the Joint Committee mechanism.

What Britain cannot do though is replace the rules laid out in the protocol with ones that offer less protection. Something which is known as; "Backsliding" in the jargon.

The overwhelming majority of these minimum standards are not something Britain adheres to under EU law. They are obligations that Britain has accepted under various, global treaties of international law.

So, for example the DUP can't suddenly introduce a law allowing them to deny public services such as housing to Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else on religious grounds. That is a restriction placed on Britain by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.

It was a restriction that was again, specifically explained to Dr, Rev Ian Paisley in the 1998 Belfast Agreement. Which Paisley signed to confirm that he had received, read and accepted.

Likewise Britain's environmental protection obligations come from the UN's 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Along with the UN Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC) of the same year. Under which you have the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Ideally I would like to see all references to the Paris Agreement removed. However that's not really anything to do with this document. I just mean from the Earth, generally.

In the area of taxation the UK is obligated to adhere to principles of good governance. As defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Prime Minister May has also been successful in extracting concessions from the EU in the very fine, technical details of these rules. And how they are enforced.

Every member of the EU Single Market is also a member of the EU Customs Union. However agreeing to become part of the Single Market involves waiving most of the restrictions of the Customs Union. So most members of the Single Market simply forget that they are also members of the Customs Union.

In the interests of getting this long stream of jargon to make anything resembling sense I will ignore, for the moment, that under the protocol Northern Ireland will not be in the EU Single Market. Nor will Britain be in the EU Customs Union.

With the customs union extending across the entire single market no-one is particularly concerned with goods produced in either, moving between the customs union and the single market. In the jargon this is known as; "Free Circulation."

What people are concerned about is goods produced in the single market using the customs union as a way to sneak out into the global market. They are even more concerned about goods produced in the global market using the customs union as a way to sneak into the single market.

Even here the primary concern is not about lost tax revenue. It is about public safety, quality and manufacturing standards.

I don't want to single anyone out but concerns about Chinese safety, quality and manufacturing standards is not "Health & Safety Gone Mad!" Even Chinese parents don't want to give their children food, medicines and toys manufactured in China.

Under the protocol all goods manufactured solely in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and on the British mainland are considered in Free Circulation. This particularly applies to farm products. So Dennis, Patrick and Kevin can keep growing their hay, feeding their cows and selling their milk.

Things get more complicated when products are manufactured within either the customs union or single market. Yet include parts or ingredients that are imported from outside the customs union.

These products require extensive customs and border controls. In order to keep track of each individual part or ingredient. Whether they adhere to relevant standards and whether the relevant tariff/tax has been paid.

Here the EU has been very generous in its definition of; "Free Circulation."

As an example the computer keyboard I'm using to write this was made in China. However I did not import it from China. I brought it from a shop on the high street.

At some point in the supply chain the shop in the high street imported it from China. Making sure that it adhered to the relevant standards and that the relevant tariff/tax had been paid.

Under the protocol this keyboard is now considered to be in Free Circulation.

Therefore I can package it up with a similarly free circulating monitor and tower and sell it to someone in the Republic of Ireland. Or anywhere else in the EU Single Market. Without having to go through all the form filling and customs checks.

This is a very big deal if you're manufacturing for export to the EU something on the UK mainland which requires that one very complex part from Japan.

The EU is also being very generous regarding the type of checks for goods which are wholly, or in part considered not to be in Free Circulation.

Imagine you're trying to import/export a shipping container holding a thousand, individually boxed laptops, wristwatches or any other generic widget.

What would happen at the border between the customs union in the single market is the shipping container would be impounded and opened. Each individual box would then be opened to check it contains what it claims to.

Customs officials would then take a random sample of, say 10 of the laptops. They would then completely take them to bits to check the origin of each individual, tiny part.

If they can't put them back together again, well that's your problem. Customs officials are not liable for loss or damage during checks.

If there is a trade war going on nations can use this system of checks to really screw with you. It allows them to stand up at the ICJ and say;

"No we've haven't put an illegal quota on goods from Spain. Most of the imports just keep getting broken on the docks."

The protocol doesn't bother with any of these checks. Instead British exporters to the EU simply have to attach a certificate to the shipping container and the customs officials just wave it through.

The specific design of that certificate has not yet been decided upon. Nor has the process of obtaining one. I suspect though for a member of trusted trader scheme it will be a case of filling out a form online and printing off the certificate in the form of a sticky label yourself.

This is an area where the British mainland's unique customs union differs from Turkey's treatment under the EU Customs Union. Now he's had it explained to him Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his wobbly economy seems even more furious than usual.

Of course if the certificate system is widely abused then the EU can impose the physical checks.

That worst case scenario though is the WTO/GATT rules the Hard Brexiteers are demanding be adopted.

Instead of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.


(Originally Posted at 18:35 on 14/12/18 (UK date)).

17:55 on 9/1/19 (UK date).