Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
The "interim" agreement goes on constantly about having to obey EU rules. I should imagine France wants UK waters to be remain part of the Common Fisheries Policy, where of course we would continue to have no say. If it was anything else there would be no reason for the French to be so antagonistic about it.
|
If we need to adhere to common rules, managing ultimately a scare resource in the North Sea, in exchange for a trade deal surely we should consider whether it’s worthwhile rather than dismiss it simply because it’s French? I’m quite sure fish don’t recognise borders when their populations move.
---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
All of these fears have been bumped up out of all proportion, Dave.
We will not see medicines not being available and we will not see planes falling out of the sky. There is a mutual desire to achieve reciprocal arrangements - Europe is heavily dependent on British holidaymakers and visitors, for example.
Trade deals are being worked on behind the scenes ready to be signed when or shortly after we leave. Once again, I would make the point that you don't have to agree a trade deal in order to trade.
We have already been assured that an application to join the trading bloc including Australia, New Zealand and Japan would be welcome.
|
Can you evidence any of these imminent trade deals? If they are imminent why is Theresa May desperate to have a interim arrangement criticised on all sides instead of no deal?
An application and agreement are two different things.