UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[In today's Sunday Times, there is a blow-by-blow account of the passage from David Frost's initial day as Chief Brexit Negotiator through to the Christmas Eve "Have we got a deal" question put by Boris to UvdL.

It's behind a paywall, but the lightbulb moment was when UvdL actually twigged on 21-December that Boris was truly prepared to settle for No Deal.

Right up to then, the EU were still trying to force us down their road.

You are of course only getting one side of the story. The major concessions in the last few days were by the UK on fish.

The Tory press are working very hard to spin this for Boris. Lets hope they succeed as a bad deal is better than no deal as Theresa said

Originally Posted by Mr K

You are of course only getting one side of the story. The major concessions in the last few days were by the UK on fish.

The Tory press are working very hard to spin this for Boris. Lets hope they succeed as a bad deal is better than no deal as Theresa said

Originally Posted by Me, 3 days ago

BBC Reality Check notes that French and Dutch media are being briefed that the UK made major concessions. Considering the stake those countries have in keeping their fishermen in line (especially that Dutch super-trawler that owns something like 20% of England’s quota all by itself) this is unsurprising. I don’t doubt however that the usual suspects will be on here in short order, regurgitating French and Dutch government spin as if it’s the unvarnished truth.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

If we don't claim it back, its no fault of Spanish. If anything it says they are more efficient.

I suspect our many drunken and elderly visitors to Spain cost a lot more in healthcare than Spanish visitors do to us.

The bill for those "drunken and elderly [UK] visitors to Spain" gets sent to the UK taxpayer. It doesn't cost the Spanish anything. That is how the system operates.
EHIC S1 scheme for longer term residents.

16.A disproportionate number of UK citizens benefit from the S1 scheme. There are only around 1.2 million UK citizens living in other EU countries, compared with around three million EU citizens living in the UK. But some 190,000 of those UK citizens are pensioners, who are more likely to benefit from the S1 scheme, compared to only 5,800 EU/EEA citizens who have registered for the S1 scheme in the UK.
17.On top of its EHIC expenditure, the UK spends approximately £500 million a year in reimbursements to Member States for healthcare provided to pensioners and others who have exported their accumulated benefits. The Department of Health and Social Care accepted that the system was cost-effective for the UK, not least because the cost of treatment overseas was often cheaper than in the UK. For example, Spain’s latest pensioner average cost—despite a recent upward revision—is now €4,173 compared with £4,396 in the UK.

On the other hand they are also not spending their money, including VAT, in the UK.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

You are of course only getting one side of the story. The major concessions in the last few days were by the UK on fish.

The Tory press are working very hard to spin this for Boris. Lets hope they succeed as a bad deal is better than no deal as Theresa said

My reading is that the UK side made one concession; our share of the catch reduced from the 80% we demanded to 25%, with an agreement period of 5½ years instead of the 18 the EU originally demanded.

Nothing else was conceded. The Agreement has been constructed, however to ensure that neither side can dictate to the other and that any abrogation by either side will be equally treated by way of arbitration.

A bit of a pity, though, that I won't be seeing the French off with my gunboats!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The bill for those "drunken and elderly [UK] visitors to Spain" gets sent to the UK taxpayer. It doesn't cost the Spanish anything. That is how the system operates.
EHIC S1 scheme for longer term residents.
On the other hand they are also not spending their money, including VAT, in the UK.

Good to see they're not being a drain on our hospitals.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

My reading is that the UK side made one concession; our share of the catch reduced from the 80% we demanded to 25%, with an agreement period of 5½ years instead of the 18 the EU originally demanded.

Nothing else was conceded. The Agreement has been constructed, however to ensure that neither side can dictate to the other and that any abrogation by either side will be equally treated by way of arbitration.

A bit of a pity, though, that I won't be seeing the French off with my gunboats!

Also, the reduction only applies to the transition period. Once that’s finished we can cut the EU quota to zero if we wish. The treaty stipulates that compensation may be due if we do this; frankly that’s fair enough. The EU trawlermen have built livelihoods in good faith and I see no reason to see them shafted the way ours were in the 1970s. In reality, there’s unlikely ever to be a huge amount of pressure from our domestic fleet for a dramatic increase in quota. There isn’t the hardware or manpower to take advantage of a rapid change. Things could change in time though.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

So British media were briefed that the EU made significant concessions per Seph's summary of The Sunday Times article. French and Dutch media were briefed that the UK made significant concessions per your post of three days ago.

I don't think that anyone can be surprised that each side is claiming victory! Time can be the only true judge. eg let's see the reaction of PSA towards investment in its Vauxhall car plant in Ellesmere Port.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

So British media were briefed that the EU made significant concessions per Seph's summary of The Sunday Times article. French and Dutch media were briefed that the UK made significant concessions per your post of three days ago.

I don't think that anyone can be surprised that each side is claiming victory! Time can be the only true judge. eg let's see the reaction of PSA towards investment in its Vauxhall car plant in Ellesmere Port.

I agree - and for that reason I’m not claiming that here in the UK we’re only getting ‘half the story’ or insinuating that whatever is printed in the European press is the actual truth. All the governments with a stake in this have a reason to quell unrest from the interest groups involved.

From what I’ve read so far I think the deal is fair. And I don’t think it’s very likely that PSA will do anything to Ellesmere Port that they weren’t thinking of doing anyway. Car assembly plants cost an absolute freaking fortune to tool up and staff. You don’t shut them down to make a political point (not even if you’re French).

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I got all the way through too (Hugh). And received this email confirmation:





---------- Post added at 14:27 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------



The EU aren't people at all. They are a bureaucratic institution trying to extend its competencies over the real people.

The real people are the citizens of the 27 countries currently under the EU cosh.

Got it?


---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------

In today's Sunday Times, there is a blow-by-blow account of the passage from David Frost's initial day as Chief Brexit Negotiator through to the Christmas Eve "Have we got a deal" question put by Boris to UvdL.

It's behind a paywall, but the lightbulb moment was when UvdL actually twigged on 21-December that Boris was truly prepared to settle for No Deal.

Right up to then, the EU were still trying to force us down their road.

Here’s a link that should be readable - I subscribe to the iPad version, and it allows a certain number of articles to be shared.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...3b134c8c5a5121

[Sephiroth]

Good one, Hugh.

That worked. Thanks Hugh

It was also very illuminating. Should be required reading on here.

[gba93]

Many thanks Hugh, a great read.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Here’s a link that should be readable - I subscribe to the iPad version, and it allows a certain number of articles to be shared.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...3b134c8c5a5121

Thanks for this, Hugh.

Important to note that this only covers the final stage of the negotiations. Is there a similar story to be told around our agreement to exclude the service sector, pay a settlement fee to the EU (£25bn left to pay) and to agree to a border between GB and NI?

A key section for me is the admission that inserting treaty-breaking clauses in the Internal Markets Bill, And briefing the Northern Ireland secretary to clearly admit it with the phrase “limited and specific” was a deliberate use of the “madman” strategy ... up to that point the EU simply didn’t believe there was any chance we would walk without a deal (thanks for nothing, Teresa May); after that, they had just enough nagging doubt to start taking our demands seriously.

It’s also interesting how deeply the EU’s Orwellian redefinition of sovereignty runs in that institution. As I’ve said all along, the problem has in large measure been down to their inability to understand what we actually mean by “sovereignty”. I know Orwell and 1984 is over-referenced in situations like this but the redefinition of terms so as to make opposition impossible is a bona fide part of that book. Newspeak as conceived by Orwell.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

A key section for me is the admission that inserting treaty-breaking clauses in the Internal Markets Bill, And briefing the Northern Ireland secretary to clearly admit it with the phrase “limited and specific” was a deliberate use of the “madman” strategy ... up to that point the EU simply didn’t believe there was any chance we would walk without a deal (thanks for nothing, Teresa May); after that, they had just enough nagging doubt to start taking our demands seriously.

It’s also interesting how deeply the EU’s Orwellian redefinition of sovereignty runs in that institution. As I’ve said all along, the problem has in large measure been down to their inability to understand what we actually mean by “sovereignty”. I know Orwell and 1984 is over-referenced in situations like this but the redefinition of terms so as to make opposition impossible is a bona fide part of that book. Newspeak as conceived by Orwell.

I think our lack of preparations until too late in the day suggested that no deal was not really on the menu. The tinkering with the NI treaty may well have been an attempt to sow some doubts here.

What to me will be fascinating is what happens next. Certainly, in any disputes with the EU on the level playing front, any action the EU takes will have a far bigger impact on the UK than the other way roumd. Equally sovereign should not be confused with equally powerful.