UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[1andrew1]

From Have I got News for You:

BREAKING: The law

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's been a tough night for you, Mick, with BoJo losing a debate to a Labour has-been ,so I'll try and be gentle. The EU doesn't expect anything that the UK hasn't requested of it. I think you're referring to the Withdrawal Agreement, which the UK requested, not the EU.

He didn’t lose that debate, his bill sailed through comfortably. Miliband failed in his bid to win enough Tory MPs to back him.

It’s been a wonderful night for me actually. Large Tory Majority, made Boris win (again) no more Parliamentary shenanigans from the continuity Remainers.

[Mad Max]

Ed Miliband: "He can't blame [Theresa May]. He can't blame John Major. He can't blame the judges... There's only one person responsible for it and that's him. This is his deal. It's his mess. It's his failure."

Anyone who listens to that knob is one slice short of a full loaf!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Anyone who listens to that knob is one slice short of a full loaf!

Objectively it was up there with Maggie's speech when she said "You turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning." Not a speech you'd hear from today's PM.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's the EU insisting we be treated as if we were still a member and have to follow EU rules.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I wish I'd got in with that one!

It’s the EU insisting if we want to trade with them, we have to follow EU rules.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s the EU insisting if we want to trade with them, we have to follow EU rules.

Not rules that only apply within the UK. Products sold in the EU, indeed have to follow EU rules, but that goes for everybody on the planet, regardless of whether a trade deal is involved.
The EU pre-condition for a trade deal is FISHING. When the Political Declaration says that fishing is to be a separate agreement, as it is with every other country the EU has a trade deal with.
Recent Barnier speech.

Without a long-term, fair and sustainable solution on fisheries, there will simply be no new economic partnership with the UK.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Objectively it was up there with Maggie's speech when she said "You turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning." Not a speech you'd hear from today's PM.

I agree. Knob though he be, Miliband's speech was more impressive than Boris's. However, as with all the opposition speakers, it would have been a winner if it contained the truth.

The Bill, if enacted, does not break international law. He and the others well know that.

The real pity is that Boris failed to see what bringing this in now would do, in particular provide a cause for the "righteous" hypocrites to slag the UK off in Parliament.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I agree. Knob though he be, Miliband's speech was more impressive than Boris's. However, as with all the opposition speakers, it would have been a winner if it contained the truth.

The Bill, if enacted, does not break international law. He and the others well know that.

The real pity is that Boris failed to see what bringing this in now would do, in particular provide a cause for the "righteous" hypocrites to slag the UK off in Parliament.

I think being PM turned out to be a step too far for Boris. His personality works well in a more figurehead position such as London Mayor when he was at his finest, particularly during the Olympics He just doesn't seem to be enjoying the job. Of course, I appreciate that this could be said for every PM managing through the Covid crisis but the fire in his stomach just seems to have died out. The drop in performance was shown last night when a has-been Labour leader outperformed him so effectively.

(I obviously disagree with you as the government itself and all living PMs bar BoJo acknowledge it will break international law. There is also a difference in criticising a government and criticising the UK - they are two different things.)

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Not rules that only apply within the UK. Products sold in the EU, indeed have to follow EU rules, but that goes for everybody on the planet, regardless of whether a trade deal is involved.
The EU pre-condition for a trade deal is FISHING. When the Political Declaration says that fishing is to be a separate agreement, as it is with every other country the EU has a trade deal with.
Recent Barnier speech.

It makes sense to negotiate a a deal on EU fishing in UK waters in return for access to EU fish markets, where most of the fish we catch go. A win-win for both sides.
Obviously, such deals are not relevant to more distant countries like Canada whose waters EU fishermen do not fish in. In trade deals, as you will learn, parties may bring to the table areas they may wish to include in a deal like fishing rights.

[Sephiroth]

@Andrew

On the fishing matter, it is one thing to negotiate something that can work for both sides. Quite another when the EU is demanding status quo as a precondition for any trade deal. We cannot allow ourselves to be walked over like that - especially when they want the fish so badly.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think being PM turned out to be a step too far for Boris. His personality works well in a more figurehead position such as London Mayor when he was at his finest, particularly during the Olympics He just doesn't seem to be enjoying the job. Of course, I appreciate that this could be said for every PM managing through the Covid crisis but the fire in his stomach just seems to have died out. The drop in performance was shown last night when a has-been Labour leader outperformed him so effectively.

(I obviously disagree with you as the government itself and all living PMs bar BoJo acknowledge it will break international law. There is also a difference in criticising a government and criticising the UK - they are two different things.)

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------


It makes sense to negotiate a a deal on EU fishing in UK waters in return for access to EU fish markets, where most of the fish we catch go. A win-win for both sides.
Obviously, such deals are not relevant to more distant countries like Canada whose waters EU fishermen do not fish in. In trade deals, as you will learn, parties may bring to the table areas they may wish to include in a deal like fishing rights.

But NOT as a pre-condition for even discussion on a trade deal. They are DEMANDING automatic full rights and CONTROL with the EU setting quotas etc. The EU has fishing agreements with other countries, but NOWHERE do they claim COMPLETE control and unfettered access.
Bilateral agreements with countries outside the EU

The EU has 2 types of fishing agreements with non-EU countries

• sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs) – the EU gives financial and technical support in exchange for fishing rights, generally with southern partner countries
• northern agreements – joint management of shared stocks with Norway, Iceland and the Faeroe Islands

Link

The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) for the North East Atlantic, one of the most abundant fishing areas in the world. The area covered by the NEAFC Convention stretches from the southern tip of Greenland, east to the Barents Sea, and south to Portugal.

As I've previously pointed out, it needs to be trade agreement FIRST, then fishing. Otherwise EU boats could catch fish in UK waters and sell them tariff free in the EU, whereas UK boats wouldn't be tariff free. That's NOT a "level playing field" and isn't "fair".
Recent Barnier speech

Without a long-term, fair and sustainable solution on fisheries, there will simply be no new economic partnership with the UK.
...
On all these issues, we are simply asking to translate the political engagements taken in the Political Declaration into a legal text.

From the Political Declaration

71. The Parties should cooperate bilaterally and internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable
levels, promote resource conservation, and foster a clean, healthy and productive marine
environment, noting that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state.
72. While preserving regulatory autonomy, the Parties should cooperate on the development of
measures for the conservation, rational management and regulation of fisheries, in a nondiscriminatory
manner. They will work closely with other coastal states and in international
fora, including to manage shared stocks.
73. Within the context of the overall economic partnership the Parties should establish a new
fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares.

Trade deal FIRST, then discussions on fishing. The EU is ditching "good faith" for the unnecessary pre-condition of fishing rights. If the EU was that bothered on reaching a deal on ANYTHING, then they would get the trade deal out of the way, and THEN start on fishing, and it would likely have all been in place by the end of this year.

EU conditions.

The UK and EU should uphold existing reciprocal access, stable quota shares (which can only be adjusted with the consent of both parties) and set either annual or multi-annual total allowable catches.
Partnership should reflect ‘continued responsible fisheries’ in line with principles of EU law, in particular those underpinning the Common Fisheries Policy.
Access to waters and quota shares will affect other aspects of the economic relationship, in particular the extent to which the UK and EU can agree tariff-free and quota-free trade in goods.

By requiring consent by both parties, that is yet another "unless and until" condition. IE The UK is UNABLE to change the previous EU based system "unless and until" the EU agrees. We lose any sort of control.

UK position

Any agreement must reflect the fact that the UK is to become an independent coastal state. The UK wishes to open up annual negotiations on fishing quotas and access and would not accept the ‘relative stability’ mechanism under the Common Fisheries Policy. It would favour a zonal attachment, which is the basis for Norway’s fisheries agreement. Any EU vessel granted access to UK waters would have to abide by UK rules. The UK will work with the EU to ensure fishing sustainability.
Both parties should share vessel monitoring data.

What is wrong with that, especially as it's the same sort of agreement the EU already has with other coastal non-EU states.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@Andrew

On the fishing matter, it is one thing to negotiate something that can work for both sides. Quite another when the EU is demanding status quo as a precondition for any trade deal. We cannot allow ourselves to be walked over like that - especially when they want the fish so badly.

In terms of levers, I suspect the French fishermen and their ability to blockade the port of Calais has put this on the negotiating table. It's something we should be able to come to a deal on though - say a phased withdrawal from British waters.

Originally Posted by nomadking

UK position
What is wrong with that, especially as it's the same sort of agreement the EU already has with other coastal non-EU states.

What's wrong with it is that the EU hasn't internalised the reality that the UK is leaving the EU. They still think it's about removing the flag and the MEPs; they still think that British citizens don't really understand, or have any serious objection to, the influence the EU has had over our domestic affairs through mechanisms like the CFP and internal market rules. They therefore reason that we can be allowed to remove the flags and the MEPs, but that it is an entirely fair and reasonable aim to continue to lock the UK into their regulatory frameworks. Essentially, they want BRINO, to the maximum extent they can get away with. It's the absolute ultimate prize if they can get away with it, because it means they get all of the above while we lose the ability to be obstructive (or, perhaps, the voice of reason) in their various summits and committees.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

What is wrong with that, especially as it's the same sort of agreement the EU already has with other coastal non-EU states.

What's wrong with this is that a different system has operated for 40 years which is not the case in the other territories you mention. You simply damage people's livelihoods overnight by a drastic change and crucially, French fishermen have strong leverage.
The key is a phased change which should be negotiable by a strong UK government with skilled negotiators.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What's wrong with this is that a different system has operated for 40 years. You simply impact people's livelihoods overnight by a drastic change and French fishermen have strong leverage.
The key is a phased change which should be negotiable by a strong UK government with skilled negotiators.

I've not seen any evidence that the sticking point is timetabling. Basic continuation of the CFP in British waters has been a precondition on the EU side from day one - a red line they have given no indication they're willing to cross.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

I've not seen any evidence that the sticking point is timetabling. Basic continuation of the CFP in British waters has been a precondition on the EU side from day one - a red line they have given no indication they're willing to cross.

I've not followed it closely enough to say one way or the other, but financially it's so unimportant that I'm sure there's room for flex.