UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Carth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Another piece of bad news for business:


Some wag on Twitter has worked out why the truck park in Ashford, Kent was so small: No deal = No logistics companies.

Probably good news to be honest. Best way to run a transport business is to have goods available for the 'return' journey. Let the foreign companies do it all, they can bring their stuff in then arrange stuff to go out

Our own firms can then concentrate their drivers & vehicles on the booming 'internet shopping' fad

[ianch99]

Another piece of news that slipped under the radar () in March was this:

Industry Troubled as UK Government Confirms EASA Departure

The UK will leave the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on December 31, when the transition period ends for the country’s departure from the European Union (EU). The UK Department for Transport (DfT) confirmed the plans over the weekend in a short statement after transport secretary Grant Shapps unexpectedly shared the news with U.S. publication Aviation Week in a March 6 interview.

The abrupt change in policy dashes the hopes of the UK’s aviation industry, which has collectively expressed a strong preference for staying within the EASA's jurisdiction. Industry groups had hoped that the UK would follow the example of Switzerland, which, despite not being an EU member state, is a part of EASA. The decision raises serious questions about the willingness of leading aerospace manufacturers to keep production in the UK due to potentially burdensome requirements to get separate UK type certification and approvals.

Originally Posted by Carth

Probably good news to be honest. Best way to run a transport business is to have goods available for the 'return' journey. Let the foreign companies do it all, they can bring their stuff in then arrange stuff to go out

Our own firms can then concentrate their drivers & vehicles on the booming 'internet shopping' fad

Well, before the COVID-19 hit us, that "fad" was accounting for nearly 20% of retail sales (it's now nearly a third of all retail sales in the UK).

[papa smurf]

Brexit: UK must 'face possibility' of no deal on future relationship with EU by end of transition

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-uk...ition-12034669


OOH by gum n heck


Brexit LIVE: Boris Johnson refuses negotiation on fishing – EU to decide if talks continue

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...no-deal-brexit

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Brexit: UK must 'face possibility' of no deal on future relationship with EU by end of transition

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-uk...ition-12034669


OOH by gum n heck


Brexit LIVE: Boris Johnson refuses negotiation on fishing – EU to decide if talks continue

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...no-deal-brexit

I think they could probably sort the fishing issue out. It's the "level playing field" that's the real issue. A problem that is the EU's making not ours. The unreasonable request that we must meet all of the EU's benchmarks so that we cannot produce things or provide services more efficiently than them and undercut them.

Which is one of the reasons we left. So if we reach no agreement on that, it's no deal - in regards to trade.

I'm sure there will be lots of other side deals around other things.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, before the COVID-19 hit us, that "fad" was accounting for nearly 20% of retail sales (it's now nearly a third of all retail sales in the UK).

exactly . . . more delivery drivers required

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think they could probably sort the fishing issue out. It's the "level playing field" that's the real issue. A problem that is the EU's making not ours. The unreasonable request that we must meet all of the EU's benchmarks so that we cannot produce things or provide services more efficiently than them and undercut them.

Which is one of the reasons we left. So if we reach no agreement on that, it's no deal - in regards to trade.

I'm sure there will be lots of other side deals around other things.

Trouble is side deals are far, far harder if there is no trade deal in the first place.

The fishing deal should be relatively unimportant to each side (I believe Harrods employs more people and adds more to UK GDP) but the UK does seem keen to want to end the current arrangements.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Trouble is side deals are far, far harder if there is no trade deal in the first place.

The fishing deal should be relatively unimportant to each side (I believe Harrods employs more people and adds more to UK GDP) but the UK does seem keen to want to end the current arrangements.

Do you not understand why "Harrods employs more people and adds more to UK GDP" ?

How about we get rid of 99% of civil servants, then we can say the local Tesco employs more people than them

[ianch99]

More Tory hypocrisy. No surprise that Redwood is front & centre ..

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/statu...49623444525063

And there it is. Having whined (misleadingly) that Parliament did not get a vote on free trade agreements negotiated by the EU, John Redwood just voted against Parliament getting a vote on FTAs negotiated by the *UK government*:
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Co...mber=True#noes
Contemptible hypocrisy.

[nomadking]

But the main reason Harrods employs more people than the fishing industry is that the other fishing employees are in the EU.

The aim isn't to completely shut out EU fishing boats, but to have UK control over who is or isn't allowed to fish in our waters. The UK fishing industry isn't big enough to pick up the slack, if EU boats were completely banned.

If the EU imposed tariffs on fish caught by UK boats and sold in the EU, wouldn't the UK have to impose some sort of tariffs on EU boats catching fish in UK waters, but selling them in the EU? Otherwise the EU boats would have an unfair advantage, as they would be tariff free.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Trouble is side deals are far, far harder if there is no trade deal in the first place.

The fishing deal should be relatively unimportant to each side (I believe Harrods employs more people and adds more to UK GDP) but the UK does seem keen to want to end the current arrangements.

.... and the reason for this is quite simple. Why should the EU dip into our back pockets, so to speak? Surely we have the the over-riding say over who fishes in our waters? It's called sovereignty.

They say the price for a trade deal is that the fishing status quo is maintained; after all, Barnier has said, if the UK regains control of its waters, the livelihoods of the EU's fishing community will be destroyed.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

More Tory hypocrisy. No surprise that Redwood is front & centre ..

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/statu...49623444525063

That's appalling hypocrisy. At times he posses the rare trait of making Cummings look a credible witness.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

.... and the reason for this is quite simple. Why should the EU dip into our back pockets, so to speak? Surely we have the the over-riding say over who fishes in our waters? It's called sovereignty.

They say the price for a trade deal is that the fishing status quo is maintained; after all, Barnier has said, if the UK regains control of its waters, the livelihoods of the EU's fishing community will be destroyed.

Like Pierre, I think fishing is less of an issue than a level playing field and involvement of the European courts in disputes. But I suspect the latter two can be spun in the same manner that a border in the Irish sea was. Deny it and then by the time the facts are known, people have lost interest.

I don't think we'll be going from "easiest deal ever" to "no deal" at the end of the year. I think BoJo will do a lot of huffing and puffing and then quietly roll over in the Autumn and acquiesce. Once again. Not the first politician to adopt this approach in the face of a stronger power and doubtless not the last. When was the last time we heard "They need us more than we need them?". Quite.

We saw BoJo hot foot it up to Scotland. No deal would give the SNP and devolution more support. BoJo doesn't want to go down in history as the PM who presided over the dissolution of the UK. Although I think that's unlikely given our Churchillian level of indebtedness at the moment. In reality, Northern Ireland is a more likely candidate to break away but not under the term of BoJo's Government.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's appalling hypocrisy. At times he posses the rare trait of making Cummings look a credible witness.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------


Like Pierre, I think fishing is less of an issue than a level playing field and involvement of the European courts in disputes. But I suspect the latter two can be spun in the same manner that a border in the Irish sea was. Deny it and then by the time the facts are known, people have lost interest.

I don't think we'll be going from "easiest deal ever" to "no deal" at the end of the year. I think BoJo will do a lot of huffing and puffing and then quietly roll over in the Autumn and acquiesce. Once again. Not the first politician to adopt this approach in the face of a stronger power and doubtless not the last. When was the last time we heard "They need us more than we need them?". Quite.

We saw BoJo hot foot it up to Scotland. No deal would give the SNP and devolution more support. BoJo doesn't want to go down in history as the PM who presided over the dissolution of the UK. Although I think that's unlikely given our Churchillian level of indebtedness at the moment. In reality, Northern Ireland is a more likely candidate to break away but not under the term of BoJo's Government.

We may disagree on some fundamentals on Brexit negotiations, but you're letting yourself down on your assessment on nationalism. For a start, the Scots need to gain a referendum from the Guvmin; why should that be granted? As to NI, can you back up your assertion?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

We may disagree on some fundamentals on Brexit negotiations, but you're letting yourself down on your assessment on nationalism. For a start, the Scots need to gain a referendum from the Guvmin; why should that be granted? As to NI, can you back up your assertion?

Scotland - I don't think it can happen for the reason I stated but there is a big increase in support for independence - now up to 54%. My key point is this will pressure BoJo to get an EU deal. A disastrous no-deal could well see some form of referendum. It also serves the purpose of being a dead cat. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...tice-82mqs6zm9

NI - won't happen under BoJo's government but I think the Irish sea border will gradually pull NI away from GB until it makes more sense to join with Eire.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Scotland - I don't think it can happen for the reason I stated but there is a big increase in support for independence - now up to 54%. My key point is this will pressure BoJo to get an EU deal. A disastrous no-deal could well see some form of referendum. It also serves the purpose of being a dead cat. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...tice-82mqs6zm9

NI - won't happen under BoJo's government but I think the Irish sea border will gradually pull NI away from GB until it makes more sense to join with Eire.

I've done your research for you!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...orth-1.3891032