UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

BREAKING: Prime Minister's chief negotiator, David Frost has tweeted a series of tweets in the last hour discussing how the EU threatened to block Food exports to Northern Ireland in their talks.

Originally Posted by David Frost, Prime Minister's Europe Special Adviser

• 1/7 I would like to make a few comments and state a few facts, in my capacity as the PM's negotiator in the current and last autumn's talks.
  
• 2/7 On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.
  
• It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted.
  
• 3/7 On 3rd country listings: the EU knows perfectly well all the details of our food standards rules because we are operating EU rules. The situation on 1.1.21 is accordingly perfectly clear. We have discussed this frequently with the EU including last week.
  
• 4/7 Any changes in future would be notified to the WTO and EU in the usual way with plenty of lead time. The EU lists dozens of countries globally on precisely this basis, without any sort of commitment about the future.
  
• 5/7 Yet it has been made clear to us in the current talks that there is no guarantee of listing us. I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland.
  
• 6/7 The EU's position is that listing is needed for Great Britain only, not Northern Ireland. So if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB.
  
• 7/7 I hope the EU will yet think better of this. It obviously makes it no easier to negotiate a good free trade agreement and the solid future relationship which we all want.

https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/sta...21856807211008

The EU has not been acting in good faith, (when has it ever?) when it has a legal obligation to do so, it has failed in this task to be so, yet you have the continuity Remainers, who still cannot see the wood for the trees, their precious EU can do no wrong, well they have here and those who still support these corrupted cretins, well shame on YOU!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The UK shares a no-fence border with the EU of a few hundred miles. It is committed to keeping the Irish border this way.
Obviously, the US and other countries do not share such borders with the EU. The UK and Republic of Ireland joined the EU at the same time so it worked ok then.

But you’ve just dodged Nomad’s core question?

That’s the problem with several of you Remainers.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The UK shares a no-fence border with the EU of a few hundred miles. It is committed to keeping the Irish border this way.
Obviously, the US and other countries do not share such borders with the EU. The UK and Republic of Ireland joined the EU at the same time so it worked ok then.

If within 4 years time it can all be ended anyway, what is the real difference with ending it now? Same end result.

The EU not using their "best endeavours, in good faith, and in full respect of their respective legal orders" to avoid all this, is breaking the protocol. It's the EU insisting the alternative is a hard border, NOT the UK.

The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of [XX] October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period.

Threats of it breaking the non-existent peace process, again breaks the protocol.

EMPHASISING that in order to ensure democratic legitimacy, there should be a process to ensure democratic consent in Northern Ireland to the application of Union law under this Protocol,

RECALLING that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and will benefit from participation in the United Kingdom's independent trade policy,
HAVING REGARD to the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom’s internal market,

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm genuinely saddened to see some of the headlines today* and the way that Great is being torn out of Great Britain. Not since the three-day week has the country's global reputation sunk so low.

As a Remainer who accepted the vote from day one, it is now more apparent than ever that BoJo is incapable of negotiating getting his ball back from the neighbours, let alone international treaties.

Even before the advent of Coronavirus, BoJo was showing the white flag to the EU on the Withdrawal Agreement but proclaiming success. Trying to alter it behind the EU's back is not the way things should be done if the country is to be taken seriously. Concentrating on Coronavirus has clearly seen the Government start to take apparent short cuts which are blowing up in its face. Witness the Conservative MPs' WhatsApp group called "What the F**** is going on?" reported by The Times yesterday.

We need goodwill and an extension so that we can get a good deal. The scales were already against us and they've sunk even lower through ineptitude.

* Some of the headlines include:

1. Brexit: Controversial bill has 'damaged trust', Irish minister tells Sky News

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-co...-news-12070693

2. Top lawyers slam Suella Braverman for wrecking UK’s reputation

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...uks-reputation

3. UK's former US ambassador [Kim Darroch] astonished at govt's 'extraordinary' plans to break international law


https://news.sky.com/story/former-pm...inues-12070632

You are very quick to claim a breach of trust by the UK, but you ignore the fact that the EU is responsible for this state of affairs and is itself breaching trust.

We know you only have eyes for the EU, Andrew, but you take your bias to extraordinary lengths.

What has happened to the promise of a Canadian-style deal that Barnier dangled in front of us not long ago? What happened to his reference to a no-tariff free trade deal he was happy to sign up to in the political declaration?

You read a lot, so you must be aware that the tweeking of the Withdrawal Agreement is necessary only if the EU fails to honour that political commitment, and that the tweeks are necessary to prevent a food blockade, which the EU have hinted at rather menacingly.

Open your eyes, Andrew. We are not asking for anything that the EU hasn't granted to other countries, yet you call the British government out on this. We will not relinquish our sovereignty or have our democracy undermined. We are leaving the jurisdiction of the EU whether they like it or not and if they won't strike a deal (thus flying in the face of common sense) then they won't get any allocation of our fish at all.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are very quick to claim a breach of trust by the UK, but you ignore the fact that the EU is responsible for this state of affairs and is itself breaching trust.

We know you only have eyes for the EU, Andrew, but you take your bias to extraordinary lengths.

What has happened to the promise of a Canadian-style deal that Barnier dangled in front of us not long ago? What happened to his reference to a no-tariff free trade deal he was happy to sign up to in the political declaration?

You read a lot, so you must be aware that the tweeking of the Withdrawal Agreement is necessary only if the EU fails to honour that political commitment, and that the tweeks are necessary to prevent a food blockade, which the EU have hinted at rather menacingly.

Open your eyes, Andrew. We are not asking for anything that the EU hasn't granted to other countries, yet you call the British government out on this. We will not relinquish our sovereignty or have our democracy undermined. We are leaving the jurisdiction of the EU whether they like it or not and if they won't strike a deal (thus flying in the face of common sense) then they won't get any allocation of our fish at all.

No, he didn’t...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

The UK cannot have the same trade deal with the EU as Canada, according to the bloc's chief negotiator.

Michel Barnier said the EU was ready to offer an "ambitious partnership" with the UK post-Brexit, but its "particular proximity" meant it would be different.

It comes after the UK's chief negotiator, David Frost, made a speech in Brussels calling for a "Canada-Free Trade Agreement-type relationship".

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, he didn’t...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

I think he did, old bean.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...el-barnier-spt

THE EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has ruled out granting Prime Minister Boris Johnson a Canada-style trade deal - something he had previously promised the UK, unearthed reports reveal.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But you’ve just dodged Nomad’s core question?

That’s the problem with several of you Remainers.

The questuioin has been answered and it's time to move on - we've left the EU.

---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are very quick to claim a breach of trust by the UK, but you ignore the fact that the EU is responsible for this state of affairs and is itself breaching trust.

We know you only have eyes for the EU, Andrew, but you take your bias to extraordinary lengths.

What has happened to the promise of a Canadian-style deal that Barnier dangled in front of us not long ago? What happened to his reference to a no-tariff free trade deal he was happy to sign up to in the political declaration?

You read a lot, so you must be aware that the tweeking of the Withdrawal Agreement is necessary only if the EU fails to honour that political commitment, and that the tweeks are necessary to prevent a food blockade, which the EU have hinted at rather menacingly.

Open your eyes, Andrew. We are not asking for anything that the EU hasn't granted to other countries, yet you call the British government out on this. We will not relinquish our sovereignty or have our democracy undermined. We are leaving the jurisdiction of the EU whether they like it or not and if they won't strike a deal (thus flying in the face of common sense) then they won't get any allocation of our fish at all.

I'm with your fellow Berkshire poster. If the amendment is needed, it's not needed now. It's antagonistic willy-waving to introduce it at this stage of the negotiations which shows a torrid and desperate approach.

It's been stated before why the EU won't allow a neighbouring country to compete on unequal terms yet have tariff-free access to the Single Market so no need to retread the well-worn track.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

Pretty clear evidence here that BoJo is witholding a good deal with the EU from the British people. Why can't he give the EU the same guarantees he has given Japan? Frankly, it looks rather incompetent. Let's get a deal with the EU and move on, BoJo!

Japan trade deal commits UK to stricter state aid curbs than in EU talks
The UK’s new trade deal with Japan commits it to tougher restrictions on state aid than the ones it is currently offering the EU in the Brexit talks, potentially undermining its negotiating position with Brussels.

In the bilateral UK-Japan agreement announced in principle on Friday, London and Tokyo have agreed to replicate the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year. That agreement prohibits the governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.

By contrast, the UK has repeatedly told the EU that it must have total freedom over state aid after the end of the Brexit transition period with complete autonomy over future subsidy decisions, subject to WTO rules.

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-...3-31b2247fa178

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, he didn’t...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

How does "particular proximity" translate into fishing rights? Are EU deals with those also in "particular proximity", eg Norway, Iceland, Turkey, Switzerland, and Ukraine, dependent on fishing rights? The EU is asking of the UK, things that it asks of nobody else.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, he didn’t...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

Didn't he?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/ar...eting-with-mps

Michel Barnier has dealt a further blow to Theresa May’s beleaguered Brexit plan by reportedly telling MPs she should ditch the Chequers deal and pursue a Canada-style arrangement instead.

Also https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...style-eu-deal/

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The questuioin has been answered and it's time to move on - we've left the EU.

---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------


I'm with your fellow Berkshire poster. If the amendment is needed, it's not needed now. It's antagonistic willy-waving to introduce it at this stage of the negotiations which shows a torrid and desperate approach.

It's been stated before why the EU won't allow a neighbouring country to compete on unequal terms yet have tariff-free access to the Single Market so no need to retread the well-worn track.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

Pretty clear evidence here that BoJo is witholding a good deal with the EU from the British people. Why can't he give the EU the same guarantees he has given Japan? Frankly, it looks rather incompetent. Let's get a deal with the EU and move on, BoJo!

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-...3-31b2247fa178

Do all EU countries operate on equal terms with each other? Of course not. Are you going to compare Romania(or anywhere else) with Germany? Any "equality" is because Germany sets it's OWN rules, and then forces the EU to follow suit.

It has to be implemented NOW, simply because time is running out and the Joint committee that is to supposedly decide and agree everything NI-related, hasn't decided or agreed on anything.

Typical nonsense comparisons.
The UK-Japan state subsidy restrictions are LIMITED in nature.

That agreement prohibits the governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.

No mention of level of state aid which is just one of the things the EU is insisting upon. I should imagine that on the issue of state aid, if that was all the EU was asking for, that aspect would've been agreed long ago. Where is the evidence that is the only concern of the EU on state aid?
Link

The EU Commission says too much steel is produced in Europe. As a result, it has been inclined to take a fairly tough line on state aid in this sector.
In 2016 for example, the commission ordered Belgium to recover 211m euros in illegal state aid it had given to its steel industry.
...
The Labour leader said the government should have decided it wanted to own British Steel and nationalised it - but that is also tricky under EU rules.
A government can own a company under state-aid rules - but it is not allowed to keep it going if it would otherwise fail.
...
Therefore, it seems likely that EU single market rules are not the only thing limiting state aid.

Anyway.

Aside from what is agreed with the EU, after Brexit, Britain will still belong to the World Trade Organization, which also has state-aid rules: members can impose tariffs - taxes on imports - on countries that excessively subsidise domestic industry.

Doesn't mean the UK is going to run amok with anything, just that the limits shouldn't be set by the EU and ECJ, where we have no say whatsoever. Did the EU insist that it was they and the ECJ to rule on anything with Japan etc, including state aid? OF COURSE NOT. Does the EU say that they can change the state aid rules, and Japan is FORCED to follow suit. OF COURSE NOT.

Geoffrey Cox is voting against:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g...word-qx36n6hwk

Sorry for not being able to post the whole thing, no subscription. However this the link with the news of his rebellion.

When the Queen’s minister gives his word, on her behalf, it should be axiomatic that he will keep it, even if the consequences are unpalatable. By doing so he pledges the faith, honour and credit of this nation and it diminishes the standing and reputation of Britain in the world if it should be seen to be otherwise.

Originally Posted by Damien

Geoffrey Cox is voting against:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g...word-qx36n6hwk

Sorry for not being able to post the whole thing, no subscription. However this the link with the news of his rebellion.

For all his fine words, he appears to have voted with the government on the Finance Act 2013 at every stage. This piece of legislation similarly breached international treaty in certain very specific ways.

I wonder if he’s had a falling out with Boris?

[1andrew1]

More details on Geoffrey Cox's approach from Tom Newton Dunn of Times Radio in this tweet thread

Includes:

Cox has been in repeated contact with No10 and the PM, and spoke to Boris Johnson personally today to ask him to go down the dispute resolution route. The PM refused. Cox will abstain at 2nd reading and then vote against the bill at every other stage unless PM changes his mind.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/stat...50002885804032

---------- Post added at 23:16 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Do all EU countries operate on equal terms with each other? Of course not. Are you going to compare Romania(or anywhere else) with Germany? Any "equality" is because Germany sets it's OWN rules, and then forces the EU to follow suit.

I don't have time to correct everything in this post today but suffice to say one country doesn't have the kind of absolute power over the EU you pretend it does.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

For all his fine words, he appears to have voted with the government on the Finance Act 2013 at every stage. This piece of legislation similarly breached international treaty in certain very specific ways

Channel 4 have factchecked that particular claim - made originally by the hapless Brandon Lewis - and found it to be incorrect.

And when the 2013 Act was still a draft bill, a senior HMRC official told the Select Committee on Economic Affairs: “we believe that the GAAR does not override our international obligations. […] We really do not see that there is an issue there.”

So at the time they were voting on it, MPs were assured by the government that passing the legislation would not breach international commitments.

That’s a very different situation to the one the current crop find themselves in today, with the government making no bones about the fact that their plans would do just that.

The actual question of whether the 2013 Finance Act did violate international treaties is a little more complicated. In short, the answer appears to be that it did not.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...seem-to-add-up

Cameron now: https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1305407945929297920

Although he doesn't have a vote, it's more notable simply because all living PMs have spoke out or expressed concerns about the bill (I don't know if the non-living PMs have expressed any concerns).

Today’s Times editorial

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...75b75ca97c5216

If the government believes the EU has acted in bad faith sufficient to justify breaking international law, it should provide compelling evidence

If the government wants the benefit of the doubt, it would help if it could get its story straight. Since the news that it planned to renege on key aspects of the Brexit withdrawal agreement first emerged, its explanations as to what it is doing and why it is doing it have been constantly shifting. Downing Street initially briefed journalists that the new bill would not breach international law, only for Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, to confirm that it would. The government first suggested that the EU was acting in bad faith in negotiations over the implementation of the Northern Irish protocol, but now says the bad faith relates to the wider trade negotiations, which could have consequences for Northern Ireland. Meanwhile Boris Johnson, who in January had hailed the withdrawal agreement as “fantastic” and good for Britain, now claims that it was negotiated in haste and is being used by the EU to break up Britain and destroy Northern Ireland’s peace process.

It is important that the government gets its story straight because the stakes could hardly be higher. It claims the clauses in the internal market bill that will allow ministers to override the legal obligations in the withdrawal agreement are an insurance policy in the event of no trade deal but insist they do still want a deal. Yet many fear that by lobbing this hand grenade into the negotiations, the government has made a deal far less likely. Last week the EU set a deadline of the end of the month for the government to withdraw the offending clauses if trade negotiations were to continue. The government may hope that the decision by EU foreign ministers to discuss Brexit at their summit next week could lead to a softening of the bloc’s position but it is just as likely to entrench it...

... If Mr Johnson believes that the EU is acting in bad faith sufficient to justify breaking international law, damaging Britain’s global standing and potentially torpedoing an EU trade deal, he should present his evidence. He needs to explain why ministers believe they must break the law rather than rely on the dispute resolution process in the withdrawal agreement. If the government believes the EU is making unreasonable demands in areas such as phytosanitary checks and state aid rules, it should set out what exactly it is that the UK wants to do that the EU is blocking. What the government cannot do is expect the public automatically to take its side in a blame game over a deal that there is evidence to suggest it never had any intention of honouring. If it wants the benefit of the doubt it needs to earn it.

Full readable article in link above.

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Didn't he?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/ar...eting-with-mps



Also https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...style-eu-deal/

Thank you - I stand corrected