UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

As of right now, the three sticking points are still 'level playing field', dispute resolution and fishing. All of them have implications for UK sovereignty, which is the whole point of the Brexit project - something the EU somehow still doesn't seem to understand, given that even now there is still no immediate prospect of a breakthrough.

They do understand it. They just think accepting such demands is worse for them than no deal, per my earlier post.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe they do understand, its we that have misunderstood. They're happy to let us go rather than give us the benefits of membership without membership. It's a crazy thing to ask for and they'd be mad to grant it.

No deal clearly isn't an option we've genuinely planned for. Hence Boris rushing to Brussels cap in hand.... Who is chasing who? We've miscalculated.

They’re just doing what they have always done, using “trade” as excuse for other means.

They used “trade” to set up the EEC, and then try to force political Union.

They are now using “trade” again to enforce their political will onto us.

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Well it's looking more and more like no deal is coming. Considering Boris Johnson said that this would be a 'failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible' is his position tenable going forward?

Absolutely. I would rather he walk away then sell us out, that I would find untenable.

[1andrew1]

If you make a deal with the Devil to gain power, then he ends up on top. Johnson made such a deal when he jumped into bed with Brexit.

He is now stuck between the evangelical leavers of the European Reform Group and the EU which needs to protect its Single Market.

The weak-minded in his party may have honestly believed that the UK holds all the cards. Johnson knows we don't. He also knows we have little to offer the EU apart from concessions, but also knows that no-deal would be hugely damaging to the economy and the Conservative Party.

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in Brussels.

The Conservative Party's parliamentary majority is based almost entirely on the will of the electorate to 'Get Brexit Done' - which clearly encompasses the permanent arrangements between the UK and the EU, and not just the simple act of leaving the bloc. It's desperately fashionable to portray this purely as power politics or party management, but the democratic dimension should not be overlooked or minimised. BoJo must now implement what the electorate mandated him to do.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

The Conservative Party's parliamentary majority is based almost entirely on the will of the electorate to 'Get Brexit Done' - which clearly encompasses the permanent arrangements between the UK and the EU, and not just the simple act of leaving the bloc. It's desperately fashionable to portray this purely as power politics or party management, but the democratic dimension should not be overlooked or minimised. BoJo must now implement what the electorate mandated him to do.

What's that ? Try and be slightly competent ? Or just quit in a few months, leave someone else to pick up the pieces, and retire to his millions ?

It's the poor that will suffer, so no loss to Johnson/Farage/Rees-Mogg there.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

Boris Johnson has backed down and offered to drop the clauses in the Brexit Bill that would break international law, in a bid to break the deadlock in the talks.

Is that the same story as this one Andrew? Slightly different heading
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55217535

Brexit: MPs reinsert controversial sections of Internal Market Bill.

MPs have voted to reinstate controversial sections of a new law to allow ministers to override sections of the UK's Brexit divorce deal.
The House of Lords previously voted to take them out - but MPs backed government plans to put them back in during a vote on Monday.

Discuss

[1andrew1]

A reminder of what Michael Gove advised us all back in 2016.

When is Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A reminder of what Michael Gove advised us all back in 2016.

When is Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP?

Damn! Needs putting back to Gove.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

3. ECJ. What sovereign nation would allow themselves to be ruled over by a foreign court? Can anyone name one outside of the EU. Surely a system like they use for Canada should be acceptable, and if not why not?

https://www.lexology.com/library/det...e-0fc5dac44b80

Keep up Pierre! The EU conceded on the ECJ yonks ago! It wants EU firms to be able to sue in British courts if the UK weakens its adherence to agreed standards in a way that gives UK firms an unfair competitive advantage. However, the UK has declined this idea.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-07/...-boris-johnson

Peston poses a good question:

If you voted for Brexit, did you think it was a state of pure and perfect national independence, or did you think that given how connected the UK is to the EU - economically, diplomatically, in respect of security - it might be a bit of a fudge and compromise?

Is Brexit an absolute state of putative grace - or a place on a spectrum, somewhere between Switzerland and Norway, which are semi-independent, and North Korea, which is wholly independent?

Er no, invoking North Korea isn’t a good question. AFAIK Peston is sympathetic towards Brexit however the way he paints it here, he sounds like he’s in the so-called “soft Brexit” (remember that?) EFTA camp.

No nation exists in a sovereign vacuum, not even North Korea, because it relies on its coal trade with China and that is what ultimately keeps Kim on a leash (just not America’s leash, which is most of the problem as far as the West is concerned).

However there is a common sense basic understanding of national sovereignty that is not undermined by a State’s free choice to sign a treaty with another. There are also the sorts of treaties that link fundamentally unconnected considerations - such as, for example, access to fishing waters and general agreement on trade tariffs - in a way that seriously limits a state’s agency and the prospect of future renegotiation. The EU is itself a spider’s web of precisely these sorts of treaties, and its negotiating aim throughout has been to keep the UK as closely tied to as much of it as possible.

After 2 rapid general elections the Tory party finally worked out that delivering Brexit meant decoupling the UK from any EU treaty that would be more onerous to us than anything Canada might have agreed to. It is highly unlikely that anything in the Canada-EU trade agreement is going to have any significant impact on Canada’s ability to manage its domestic regulatory regime as it sees fit. That’s something the EU isn’t prepared to tolerate in the UK’s case and that’s why questions of sovereignty are still front and centre at such a late stage.

For clarification - btw, the Canada deal took 8 years to negotiate, and still isn’t signed off by all the member states...

What is a 'Canada-style' trade deal? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45633592

Is the UK's trade with the EU like Canada's?

Countries that are closer to each other tend to trade more, especially in goods, and this is the case with the UK and the EU.

The UK exported £291bn of goods and services to other EU countries in 2018, which was 45% of all UK exports.

It imported £357bn of goods and services from the EU, which was 53% of all UK imports.

On the other hand, Canada exported 46.2bn Canadian dollars (£26.7bn) of goods and services to the EU in 2017, which was 7.9% of its exports

It imported 63.6bn Canadian dollars of goods and services to the EU, which was 10.5% of its imports.

It does little for the trade in services and in particular almost nothing for the trade in financial services, which is very important for the UK economy.

[Sephiroth]

I consider it perfectly reasonable for any third party, UK registered or EU registered, to have access to the UK courts in respect of alleged treaty breaches by the UK.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I consider it perfectly reasonable for any third party, UK registered or EU registered, to have access to the UK courts in respect of alleged treaty breaches by the UK.

I'm assuming BoJo is building up a store of things he can be shown to be later conceding on, namely UK courts for treaty remedies and removing the unlawful parts of the Internal Market Bill.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I consider it perfectly reasonable for any third party, UK registered or EU registered, to have access to the UK courts in respect of alleged treaty breaches by the UK.

Agreed - but how long before the Red Tops start (continue) calling Judges "Enemies of the People", or Number 10 calls Judges "politically biased"?

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

Good news!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55229681

Brexit: UK and EU reach deal on Northern Ireland border checks

The UK and EU have reached agreement on how rules in the withdrawal agreement will be implemented, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland.

The government says an agreement in principle has been found for issues including border control posts and the supply of medicines.

The government says it will now withdraw controversial clauses in the Internal Market Bill.

However negotiations to reach a post-Brexit trade deal are still ongoing.

The details of the agreement have not been published but are expected to be rubber stamped in the coming days.

They will apply regardless of whether the two sides can agree a trade deal.

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said he was "delighted" and thanked the European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič for his teams "constructive and pragmatic approach".

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...awal-agreement

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Agreed - but how long before the Red Tops start (continue) calling Judges "Enemies of the People", or Number 10 calls Judges "politically biased"?
<snip>

Is there evidence to suggest this might happen (excluding the vehement press)?