Brexit

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Have the EU said we can have a Canada style deal? I have seen Canada being cited as the option left at the bottom of Barniers 'staircase' slide (http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/brexit-tell-us-eu/) but I thought that was more what was left after the Governemts red lines were taken in to account.

Of course a Canada style deal still closes the RoI/NI border. We need that technology (or alternatively, May shouldn't have called an election and she could have binned off Northern Ireland)

That's the problem, everything keeps cycling back to either breach UK or EU red lines. I am sure there is a deal out there but as it stands, nothing is standing out

Barnier has said we can have a Canada style deal. Here is one report of his statement.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

The NI border is a red herring and if we leave the EU without a deal, that problem remains, doesn't it?

The EU is concerned to get a deal with the UK because it has a large volume of its own exports hanging on this. And when I say a 'no deal' I mean no withdrawal agreement. Article 28 and the trade deal are both accepted as being options under a so called 'no deal' scenario.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Barnier has said we can have a Canada style deal. Here is one report of his statement.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

The NI border is a red herring and if we leave the EU without a deal, that problem remains, doesn't it?

The EU is concerned to get a deal with the UK because it has a large volume of its own exports hanging on this. And when I say a 'no deal' I mean no withdrawal agreement. Article 28 and the trade deal are both accepted as being options under a so called 'no deal' scenario.

But the Canada style deal excludes services:

https://www.ft.com/content/30705bfc-...2-916d4fbac0da

is expected to be based on the Canada trade deal, with little or no privileged access on services added. The “plus” would come from linked agreements on fisheries, aviation, security and foreign policy co-ordination, which are not included in the Canada-EU agreement.

Brexit Britain faces services squeeze with Canada-style deal

An accord that almost entirely deals with goods will offer only limited benefits. London and Brussels agree: for an idea of where Britain’s post-Brexit relations with the EU are heading, look to Canada.

As soon as the UK wound up its divorce talks last Friday, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, said Britain’s demands to break with the bloc’s single market and customs union left no option other than a deal modelled on the 2016 goods trade-focused accord with Canada.

David Davis, Mr Barnier’s opposite number, told the BBC at the weekend that Britain was aiming at “Canada plus plus plus”, an agreement that would go much further in grafting on other sectors, notably services.

But Brussels insists that the UK faces a binary choice between participating in the single market, as Norway does, or a Canada-style deal.

The focus by both sides on the Canada accord highlights a particular problem for Britain: the limited benefits for a services-based economy of a treaty that almost entirely deals with goods.

Services account for 70 per cent of British output, and, more relevantly, 40 per cent of its exports.

And while there are limits to how well the EU services market functions — it lags well behind the bloc’s single market for goods — executives and economists say that British business would still feel the pain from leaving.

“Even if we are critical, it [the single market for services] is one of the EU’s biggest achievements,” says Arnaldo Abruzzini, chief executive of Eurochambres, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry. “There is no free-trade agreement that gives access in this same way.”

According to an internal European Commission document on Brexit, the Canada deal’s provisions on services merely reflect the “current state of openness applied (but not guaranteed) to all World Trade Organization members” — and does not cover sectors such as aviation or broadcasting.

The deal’s services chapter amounts to “no new access for Canada, in a word: nada”, says Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, a think-tank.

The Canada agreement tackles overt discrimination against foreign ownership, but it does little to deal with lower-level barriers such as country-specific regulations.

“It essentially provides guarantees that the EU won’t impose restrictions that it doesn’t intend to impose anyway,” he says. “It is rules about rules — a guarantee of what WTO members already have.”

[papa smurf]

Man ordered to pay Nigel Farage £350 in compensation for throwing milkshake at him


The Brexit Party leader's suit was left covered with the banana and salted caramel Five Guys milkshake in Newcastle last month.

https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-t...amage-11744012

Plus the milkshake cost hm £5.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Plus the milkshake cost hm £5.

£355.25 for a milkshake

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

£355.25 for a milkshake

Less then a pound to buy in your nearest supermarket.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

£355.25 for a milkshake

That’s Five Guys for you.

[bubblegun]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

£355.25 for a milkshake

And reportedly got sacked by Sky too so a very expensive lunch break.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...exit-rq2m30t8n

Priorities, priorities. If you were a member of the Tory party (maybe you are, there are 160,000 out there somewhere) it would be easy to assume that one of your priorities might be the preservation of the Tory party. Apparently not.

There is only thing that the current Conservative member is worried about: Brexit. And they are willing to see almost everything else destroyed to ensure it happens.

According to a new YouGov poll, 61 per cent of members would rather have “significant damage” to the economy to ensure Brexit takes place. The membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party would shrug off the break-up of the union: 63 per cent think it acceptable to see Scotland leave the UK to get Brexit, while 59 per cent would rather Northern Ireland left too to ensure what is left of the country leaves the EU.

More than half of members (54 per cent) would rather Brexit took place, even if it meant “the Conservative Party being destroyed”. In fact the only scenario in which they are willing to opt for preventing Brexit is if it also meant preventing Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-48680303

He was his usual charismatic self and he struck a positive note for the commercial future of the UK and the role of business as being seen as a force for good. That all went down very well.

However, when pressed on what his plan is - people were less convinced.

Mr Johnson's plan appeared to be to defer the negotiations over the problematic Irish backstop till after the UK leaves the EU on 31 October. He proposed extending the transition period till December 2021, which would give everyone enough time to negotiate a free-trade deal and come up with the technology to ensure no physical infrastructure would be required at the Irish border.

This plan is roughly the same as the one suggested by Kit Malthouse. A plan that was dismissed by the EU as it required the backstop to be replaced by a solution that does not yet exist and therefore couldn't be considered a backstop at all.

When asked whether he was prepared to leave with no deal on 31 October, he said that it was not his preferred option, we had to prepare for no-deal and if necessary go through with it.

One attendee I spoke to felt that "his heart wasn't in that comment", another said, "the look in his eyes made you question whether he really meant that".

Update, after some reflection...

Defer negotiations until after a "no deal" exit on 31st October - the "transition period" is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, so if there is a "no deal" exit, there is no Withdrawal Agreement, so no transition period to extend...

So, in summary, BJ is going to leave with "no deal" and then use the transition period agreed in the deal he didn’t get to sort out a deal.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by bubblegun

And reportedly got sacked by Sky too so a very expensive lunch break.

Win win outcome then

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Barnier has said we can have a Canada style deal. Here is one report of his statement.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

The NI border is a red herring and if we leave the EU without a deal, that problem remains, doesn't it?

The EU is concerned to get a deal with the UK because it has a large volume of its own exports hanging on this. And when I say a 'no deal' I mean no withdrawal agreement. Article 28 and the trade deal are both accepted as being options under a so called 'no deal' scenario.

Sorry for the delay, I was away Yesterday. Thanks very much for the link, it does seem to reflect Barniers 'staircase' slide. It seems a pragmatic solution but again, the NI/RoI border issue is still an issue and of course it would be under a 'no deal' situation.

I guess my pessimism come from the inability to see a deal that is politically acceptable in the UK AND preserves the principles of the GFA.

I haven't heard much about article 28 of GATT recently. The last I heard was some grumpy noises from Australia and New Zealand on Tariff Rate Quotas but that was late last year

Not just Oz & NZ - some 20 countries, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, and the US, raised objections over the proposed new commitment documents.

[1andrew1]

I see that Boris's daft GATT 24 claims have failed the Factchecker!

Boris Johnson was challenged by Rory Stewart to detail what tariffs (taxes on imports) would be charged on agricultural goods crossing the border.
He said there would be "no tariffs or quotas" because "what we want to do is get a standstill in our current arrangements under GATT 24" until a free trade deal had been negotiated.
GATT 24 is an article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Supporters of a no-deal Brexit say it would allow the UK to continue to trade with the EU without tariffs for up to 10 years, while the two sides were negotiating a permanent future trade agreement.
But you can't use it in this way - a trade agreement has to be agreed in principle before Article 24 can be used.
It also needs the two sides to agree - the UK can't just impose it on the EU. You can read more about it here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I see that Boris's daft GATT 24 claims have failed the Factchecker!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344

Will that stand in the way of his rise to power?