UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Carth]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I think these are the points that are really the sticking points on the EU side.
3. Is fair enough, there should be differences between trade/movement deals and full membership.

2. Is what is at the nub of the situation for the EU side. If we can leave the club but still trade and have some degree of movement then the whole club can become a non-entitiy as others would want the same.

I'm pretty sure some members of the 'club' are following things very closely, and depending on the result will be weighing up the pro's & cons of remaining a member

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I think these are the points that are really the sticking points on the EU side.
3. Is fair enough, there should be differences between trade/movement deals and full membership.

2. Is what is at the nub of the situation for the EU side. If we can leave the club but still trade and have some degree of movement then the whole club can become a non-entitiy as others would want the same.

The UK is not trying to negotiate anything close to 'loose membership' status. Norway and Switzerland style arrangements (so-called 'EEA-plus') were dismissed very early on.

The problem is that the EU is philosophically unequipped for the reversal of the irreversible, which is represented by the UK's departure. We have contravened the grand narrative of ever-closer union, and while the institution may pay lip service to respect for the referendum result, they simply don't have the intellectual resources to understand what that actually looks like.

Thus, we have become stuck on symbols that echo all the way back to the earliest days of European empires. Who rules the waves? For the UK side, sovereign control over territorial waters and appropriate control of the exclusive economic zone as recognised in international law is a given. For the EU side - for which read, the French in this case - the old imperial power is up to its old tricks, and worse, is seeking to exclude French trawlers from parts of the sea that didn't even sit within the UK's economic zone at the point the UK joined the EU (the relevant UN agreement not having come into force until 1982). Plus, French trawler men are militant and Macron is justifiably worried about what will happen if the UK gets its way on this.

We have ended up in an impasse and one side or the other is going to have to give way, if not now, then in a year or two once everyone is fed up with the additional complexities of carrying on business without a trade deal. Personally, and I know I speak as a Brexit supporter, I can't conceive of this ending without the UK controlling its waters outside the CFP. It is a basic issue of sovereignty, which is the very thing the EU as an institution is hard-wired to think of as negotiable, but there are pragmatic voices in the member states who are going to have to find a way to talk Macron down, and I believe they will do so. Eventually.

[1andrew1]

Fishing just needs to be a gradual wind-down over say three years so fishermen can readjust.

No-deal would mean that many UK fishermen would go out of business due to tariffs pricing them out of the key EU market. eg British shellfish sales to the EU are worth £430m a year – more than a quarter of all UK fish exports by value. They are key to the survival of small-scale fishermen in Scotland and the West Country.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...xposed-no-deal

UK needs to think about how it allocates future quotas - over half is owned by foreign companies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116

Spain, Holland and Iceland acquired 88% of Wales's quotas.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/93...fishing-quotas

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I think these are the points that are really the sticking points on the EU side.
3. Is fair enough, there should be differences between trade/movement deals and full membership.

2. Is what is at the nub of the situation for the EU side. If we can leave the club but still trade and have some degree of movement then the whole club can become a non-entitiy as others would want the same.

A sound analysis.

[1andrew1]

Bloomin' establishment!

Boris Johnson faces Brexit bill defeat at pivotal moment

Boris Johnson’s plan to flout international law over Brexit is set to be blocked by the House of Lords next month, throwing up an incendiary early test of relations with Joe Biden if he wins next week’s US election.

Mr Biden has warned that Mr Johnson’s UK internal market bill would undermine the Northern Ireland peace process and that he would never sign a trade deal with the UK unless key clauses in the bill were removed. Members of parliament’s upper house are expected to oblige Mr Biden by voting overwhelmingly to throw out six clauses from the bill, which ministers have admitted will breach Britain’s withdrawal treaty, signed last year with the EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/807e1c15-...7-562ffc57e232

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Bloomin' establishment!



https://www.ft.com/content/807e1c15-...7-562ffc57e232

Members of parliament’s upper house are expected to oblige Mr Biden by voting overwhelmingly to throw out six clauses from the bill, which ministers have admitted will breach Britain’s withdrawal treaty, signed last year with the EU.

Excellent news.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Excellent news.

The commons will just send it back and it will go through.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

The commons will just send it back and it will go through.

Or the government could use the Parliament Act to override the Lords, they do not have veto powers because of said Act.

Andrew just blindly finds links to articles without doing any actual homework.

The Parliament Act doesn’t allow the Commons to override the Lords immediately. If the Lords reject the bill there is a 12 month delay before it is reintroduced; if the Lords votes it down at that point the Parliament Act may be used to force it through.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

The Parliament Act doesn’t allow the Commons to override the Lords immediately. If the Lords reject the bill there is a 12 month delay before it is reintroduced; if the Lords votes it down at that point the Parliament Act may be used to force it through.

So it was a government bluff.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So it was a government bluff.

I think it was primarily a gambit intended to try to make the EU take them seriously, yes. There was never any way their Lordships were going to pass the bill unamended and there is no mechanism for the government to force it into law any earlier than late 2021. If they were truly determined to have their way they would now have to park it until next year, but they can't; they need to get UK single market rules in place, which means the Commons is eventually going to have to send back a version of the bill the Lords will support, in the next few weeks. And if they do that, and if it is accepted and becomes law, there is no means of using the parliament act next year to put the controversial provisions back on the table and then force them through.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So it was a government bluff.

Last throw of the dice before caving in but the huge negative reaction to the proposed legislation by the EU and US meant it backfied.

Meanwhile, British industry continues to pile the pressure on.

Plea to avoid 'devastating' no-deal Brexit as UK car industry sees worst September in 25 years

Mr Hawes [SMMT] pleaded with the government to reach a trade deal with the EU so that cars from Britain could still be exported to the bloc's countries tariff-free.

He said: "With the end of transition now just 63 days away, the fact that both sides are back around the table is a relief but we need negotiators to agree a deal urgently, one that prioritises automotive, enhances innovation and supports the industry in addressing the global threat of climate change.

"With production already strained, the additional blow of 'no deal' would be devastating for the sector, its workers and their families."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...rtan-ntp-feeds

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

A cross-party group of MPs and peers including a former national security adviser are taking legal action against Boris Johnson over his government’s refusal to order an inquiry into Russian interference in UK elections.

The group filed a claim in the high court in an attempt to force the prime minister to carry out an independent investigation or public inquiry. It the first legal action of its kind over alleged national security failures.

The move follows the publication in July of the Russia report by parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC). It found that the government and its intelligence services had failed to investigate Kremlin meddling in the 2016 EU referendum vote – a “hot potato”, as the ISC put it.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...rtan-ntp-feeds

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Last throw of the dice before caving in but the huge negative reaction to the proposed legislation by the EU and US meant it backfied.

Meanwhile, British industry continues to pile the pressure on.


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...rtan-ntp-feeds

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...rtan-ntp-feeds

And what exactly was meant to be the nature of this alleged meddling?
Expressing an opinion on something is not meddling. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

For the umpteenth time, enough people wanted to leave long before any suggestion of a referendum. That is why the referendum happened in the first place.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And what exactly was meant to be the nature of this alleged meddling?
Expressing an opinion on something is not meddling. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

For the umpteenth time, enough people wanted to leave long before any suggestion of a referendum. That is why the referendum happened in the first place.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And what exactly was meant to be the nature of this alleged meddling?
Expressing an opinion on something is not meddling. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

For the umpteenth time, enough people wanted to leave long before any suggestion of a referendum. That is why the referendum happened in the first place.

I'm sure that as an advocate of democracy, you welcome this being tested oin the courts.