UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Sephiroth]

To me, the telling part of the BBC report is this paragraph:

Mr Barnier said the UK negotiating team keeps repeating that they are negotiating as "sovereign equals", but the "reality" was that an agreement was being sought between a massive bloc and a smaller nation.

I hope the reality will be that the UK tells the bullies to stick it where the fish don't swim.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

What lines?

The red lines....

[Sephiroth]

Don't you two start!

The UK Guvmin should stick to its policy of walking away at the end of June if there is nothing concrete agreed by then. There's a lot of scope for an interim agreement to be reached on the points that are not in contention. An extension will not change the EU's position on their red lines, which include "justice" (CJEU juridsdiction), "fisheries" (our fish is their fish), "level playing field" (we must be as bureaucratic and inefficient as they are and the CJEU decides it all).

Any Brit who respects the EU's bullying position should move there and stay there.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

That sounds like a fairly thin lawyer's excuse to me. Even in the absence of a formal legal text, I highly doubt that the EU does not by now know in some detail what the UK's position on fisheries is.

As always your confidence in the British Government far exceeds mine.

I suspect we aren't making progress because the Government is too busy dealing with Coronavirus and we know the deadline is completely arbitrary and will be extended.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Don't you two start!

The UK Guvmin should stick to its policy of walking away at the end of June if there is nothing concrete agreed by then. There's a lot of scope for an interim agreement to be reached on the points that are not in contention. An extension will not change the EU's position on their red lines, which include "justice" (CJEU juridsdiction), "fisheries" (our fish is their fish), "level playing field" (we must be as bureaucratic and inefficient as they are and the CJEU decides it all).

Any Brit who respects the EU's bullying position should move there and stay there.

Don't you start! We are pretty much in agreement on this!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Don't you start! We are pretty much in agreement on this!

It's more your debating style.

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Don't you two start!

The UK Guvmin should stick to its policy of walking away at the end of June if there is nothing concrete agreed by then. There's a lot of scope for an interim agreement to be reached on the points that are not in contention. An extension will not change the EU's position on their red lines, which include "justice" (CJEU juridsdiction), "fisheries" (our fish is their fish), "level playing field" (we must be as bureaucratic and inefficient as they are and the CJEU decides it all).

Any Brit who respects the EU's bullying position should move there and stay there.

There's obviously more to fisheries than simply "they're our fish" there's a limited supply and they move. Fish also have a monetary value, especially fresh fish, so it's a reasonable trading chip for us to use access to get something we want in return (and vice versa).

That's the whole notion of international trade. It might not be as straightforward as money = goods but it's always going to be a thing for as long as we share the same sea.

Level playing field is another area where actually we probably agree with the EU. Would we want German subsidised industry to flood our markets with their goods? Of course not. Why would the EU settle for us not agreeing to state aid rules?

[pip08456]

If the Germans subsidise their industry wouldn't that be breaking EU rules?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

If the Germans subsidise their industry wouldn't that be breaking EU rules?

It's a hypothetical question, but you are right that's the point of the EU rules to stop someone from doing so. We wouldn't want it, they wouldn't want it either.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

To me, the telling part of the BBC report is this paragraph:

Mr Barnier said the UK negotiating team keeps repeating that they are negotiating as "sovereign equals", but the "reality" was that an agreement was being sought between a massive bloc and a smaller nation.

I hope the reality will be that the UK tells the bullies to stick it where the fish don't swim.

For me, this is the telling part of the press conference

This week the UK failed to engage substantially on these topics,” he said, addressing the issue of the so-called level playing field for regulations.

"It argued that our positions are too far apart to reach an agreement – it also denounced the basic premise that economic interconnectedness and geographic proximity require robust guarantees. Yet again, this is what we agreed with Boris Johnson in our joint political declaration. This is what the UK parliament approved after the December elections at the same time as the withdrawal agreement.”

Citing the political declaration on the future relationship approved by the UK and its parliament, Mr Barnier added: “What is written in this text needs to be implemented in a serious, objective, legal way in the negotiation. This is not the case yet, I regret that and it worries me.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9482171.html

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's more your debating style.

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------



There's obviously more to fisheries than simply "they're our fish" there's a limited supply and they move. Fish also have a monetary value, especially fresh fish, so it's a reasonable trading chip for us to use access to get something we want in return (and vice versa).

That's the whole notion of international trade. It might not be as straightforward as money = goods but it's always going to be a thing for as long as we share the same sea.

Level playing field is another area where actually we probably agree with the EU. Would we want German subsidised industry to flood our markets with their goods? Of course not. Why would the EU settle for us not agreeing to state aid rules?

There's obviously more to fisheries than simply "they're our fish" there's a limited supply and they move. Fish also have a monetary value, especially fresh fish, so it's a reasonable trading chip for us to use access to get something we want in return (and vice versa).

I think you've pulled too narrow a meaning in your response to me remark. "Our fish" means our waters. Other than that, it is a potential trading chip. But do please remember, the big bully EU are standing on as tiny a proportion of their economy as we are; the issue is totemic as I'm sure you are aware. Trouble is that their negotiating approach is to remind us that they are very big and we are small.

That's the whole notion of international trade. It might not be as straightforward as money = goods but it's always going to be a thing for as long as we share the same sea.

Do we share the same sea? The sea is parcelled up into territorial waters and economic waters, all recognised under International Law.

Level playing field is another area where actually we probably agree with the EU. Would we want German subsidised industry to flood our markets with their goods? Of course not. Why would the EU settle for us not agreeing to state aid rules?

I understand your point, but you would know as well as I do that the EU doesn't want to UK to be more competitive than their stifled industries rather than the other way round. They are the ones insisting on a level playing field. Our Guvmin is not (although some might criticise that).

I just want to be shot of the EU and watch it tear itself apart in due course.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]


I think you've pulled too narrow a meaning in your response to me remark. "Our fish" means our waters. Other than that, it is a potential trading chip. But do please remember, the big bully EU are standing on as tiny a proportion of their economy as we are; the issue is totemic as I'm sure you are aware. Trouble is that their negotiating approach is to remind us that they are very big and we are small.

If by totemic you mean people place an absolutely irrational value or meaning to them, then absolutely yes I'm in agreement.

Do we share the same sea? The sea is parcelled up into territorial waters and economic waters, all recognised under International Law.

While we have clearly defined borders within it, we fundamentally share or have a stake in it and the sustainability of fishing stocks.

I understand your point, but you would know as well as I do that the EU doesn't want to UK to be more competitive than their stifled industries rather than the other way round. They are the ones insisting on a level playing field. Our Guvmin is not (although some might criticise that).

Nor would we want the EU to be more competitive than our own industry - it's fairly fundamental to any international trade. It doesn't make the EU the "big bad guy"; indeed if we take that view then India, Japan, China and the USA will all be the same in negotiations due to relative economic strength.

I just want to be shot of the EU and watch it tear itself apart in due course.

Politically that's straightforward, even done. However economically that can't be the case for as long as trade (and the EU) exists.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's a hypothetical question, but you are right that's the point of the EU rules to stop someone from doing so. We wouldn't want it, they wouldn't want it either.

But that would mean we have to comply with EU rules, I don't think they've fully grasped what leaving means.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

<SNIP>


While we have clearly defined borders within it, we fundamentally share or have a stake in it and the sustainability of fishing stocks.

<SNIP>

As you know, I don't agree with what you've just replied, but to keep it short, I single out just one of your remarks to repudiate and then bring in "totemic"..

The very last thing on the EU's minds in negotiating with us is the sustainability of fish stocks; a complete red herring (pun intended) on your part. Sustainability is as important to the UK as it should be to the EU, but that's not the headline negotiating issue.

You have more or less said that "totemic" is irrational; although that would have to cut both ways were it the case. A lot of British fisherman want their waters back and it's not irrational for me to support that.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

To me, the telling part of the BBC report is this paragraph:

Mr Barnier said the UK negotiating team keeps repeating that they are negotiating as "sovereign equals", but the "reality" was that an agreement was being sought between a massive bloc and a smaller nation.

I hope the reality will be that the UK tells the bullies to stick it where the fish don't swim.

More on this. In today's 25-April) Torygraph . Paywall so no link (plus I can't find one).

I'll single out one paragraph (which I support) from our man, David Frost, which is the exact antithesis of the EU position.

We support high standards. But there is no need for novel and unprecedented 'level playing field' rules, for example tying us to EU laws, or a role for the EU Court.

[jfman]

All trade deals require rules, that’s what makes it a “deal”. There are rules and a framework in place for both sides to adhere to.

If we aren’t willing to be bound by rules established by ourselves as a sovereign nation within these agreements then yes, we probably should just walk away and forget international trade at all with anyone.