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).