UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by papa smurf

There will a load of French trawlers going cheap, might see if i can pick one up.

Denmark take more fish from British waters than France, so you’d be better off buying from them...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You have not addressed the reason why the PM has taken that route. But you wouldn’t, would you?

You seem blind to all the EU’s duplicity but take pleasure in tripping the government up at every turn.

You’d make a good Russian!

If Party A revokes part of an international treaty it makes with Party B, which is the perfidious party? A or B.

It gives me no pleasure to see our country's currency and global influence falling since June 2016. (eg 20/6/16. £1=$1.47. Today £1=$1.29).

Russia is pro-Brexit like you. It wants to weaken the EU as it supports the Ukraine and has brought much of Eastern Europe into its membership. And only recently, the EU agreed on new sanctions against Russia over the poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. https://www.politico.eu/article/nava...sia-sanctions/

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If Party A revokes part of an international treaty it makes with Party B, which is the perfidious party? A or B.

It gives me no pleasure to see our country's currency and global influence falling since June 2016. (eg 20/6/16. £1=$1.47. Today £1=$1.29).

Russia is pro-Brexit like you. It wants to weaken the EU as it supports the Ukraine and has brought much of Eastern Europe into its membership. And only recently, the EU agreed on new sanctions against Russia over the poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. https://www.politico.eu/article/nava...sia-sanctions/

The bill would only have to acted upon, in the event of the EU not following the NI protocol. That stipulates that the EU has to come to an agreement on several matters. As they haven't, THEY would be breaking the "international agreement".

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If Party A revokes part of an international treaty it makes with Party B, which is the perfidious party? A or B.

It gives me no pleasure to see our country's currency and global influence falling since June 2016. (eg 20/6/16. £1=$1.47. Today £1=$1.29).

Russia is pro-Brexit like you. It wants to weaken the EU as it supports the Ukraine and has brought much of Eastern Europe into its membership. And only recently, the EU agreed on new sanctions against Russia over the poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. https://www.politico.eu/article/nava...sia-sanctions/

Andrew, you really are short on argument here.

Of course, as you say, the current situation gives you no pleasure. You are a Remainer who has quoted currency values that you prefer to have kept.

But you skilfully avoid to date to provide any view as to what Boris should now agree to in current state of negotiation given that we are not EU members. So I'll ask some questions that I hope you will answer with no weasel wording.

1. Should we allow the EU to retain current fishing rights in UK waters?

2. Should we agree to a "level playing field" that chains us to EU rules?

3. Should we allow the ECJ to make binding rulings on the UK?

Can you manage that please?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The bill would only have to acted upon, in the event of the EU not following the NI protocol. That stipulates that the EU has to come to an agreement on several matters. As they haven't, THEY would be breaking the "international agreement".

I'm afraid that the best legal minds in the country disagree with you.

Meanwhile, this is what looks likely to me.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Andrew, you really are short on argument here.

Of course, as you say, the current situation gives you no pleasure. You are a Remainer who has quoted currency values that you prefer to have kept.

But you skilfully avoid to date to provide any view as to what Boris should now agree to in current state of negotiation given that we are not EU members. So I'll ask some questions that I hope you will answer with no weasel wording.

1. Should we allow the EU to retain current fishing rights in UK waters?

2. Should we agree to a "level playing field" that chains us to EU rules?

3. Should we allow the ECJ to make binding rulings on the UK?

Can you manage that please?

I'm long on facts and short on emotion which is the counter-part to my previous discussant. The curency value impacts the wealth of the country and its ability to invest in education, the armed forces, healthcare and the technologies of the future. It's not an abstract figure.

My answer to all of the above questions is that it depends what we get in return.

All to play for at the car plants with new models on hold at Sunderland and Ellesmere Port delayed pending Boris giving the EU a good deal. And BMW is ceasing MINI production in the Netherlands in 2024 so potentially some of that could find its way to Cowley. Let's hope Boris doesn't revert to his F-business mindset.

What I think is in the capability of the UK govenment is:
1. Arrange for a staggered wind-down to new fishing arrangements.
2. Agree to a level playing field as in practice it won't have any on the UK as we are a rich country with no recent history of significant interevention in industry.
3. Come up with a compromise on the ECJ.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

<SNIP>

What I think is in the capability of the UK government is:
1. Arrange for a staggered wind-down to new fishing arrangements.
2. Agree to a level playing field as in practice it won't have any on the UK as we are a rich country with no recent history of significant intervention in industry.
3. Come up with a compromise on the ECJ.

Certainly thank you for answering the questions.

As to where I currently stand in relation to your answers:

1. Agreed.

2. Disagree - they will be making their own interpretations so as to inflict maximum misery upon us.

3. Disagree. We are sovereign and the ECJ, which interprets EU law must not govern us in any way.

According to Business Secretary Alok Sharma, the difference between an Australia-style deal with the EU and a No Deal Brexit is a “question of semantics”...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-...stralia-style/

Nick Ferrari then pressed the minister, asking him to explain the difference between an Australian deal and a No Deal.

Mr Sharma said the UK has already got a deal as part of the Withdrawal Agreement, but Mr Ferrari pressed again, asking what the deal would look like "going forward".

The business Secretary said: "Well, the Australian deal is the deal where you are working with countries on a WTO basis."

"So it's a No Deal?" said Mr Ferrari, "I don't see any distinction between an Australian deal and a No Deal".

The Minister eventually replied: "It's a question of semantics at the end of the day."

Nick Ferrari replied: "It's the future of this nation, and it's relying on semantics."

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

According to Business Secretary Alok Sharma, the difference between an Australia-style deal with the EU and a No Deal Brexit is a “question of semantics”...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-...stralia-style/

I think after having years of the wool pulled over his eyes, Nick Ferrari is now waking up and smelling the coffee and it's not a pleasant taste.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

According to Business Secretary Alok Sharma, the difference between an Australia-style deal with the EU and a No Deal Brexit is a “question of semantics”...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-...stralia-style/

Just the government trying avoid the use of "no deal" and instead call it an "Australian deal" which is just no deal.

I don't see the point, everybody knows that if we don't do a deal then it's no deal and what will happen instead of one over-arching agreement, then lots of other deal smaller side agreements will have to be done to keep things going along.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Just the government trying avoid the use of "no deal" and instead call it an "Australian deal" which is just no deal.

I don't see the point, everybody knows that if we don't do a deal then it's no deal and what will happen instead of one over-arching agreement, then lots of other deal smaller side agreements will have to be done to keep things going along.

Not sure most people have the time or inclination to follow Brexit as closely as some of us on this thread do.
Australian deal sounds better than No-deal with its negative connotations hence Boris seized the chance to use it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not sure most people have the time or inclination to follow Brexit as closely as some of us on this thread do.
Australian deal sounds better than No-deal with its negative connotations hence Boris seized the chance to use it.

Well it’s just politics.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

According to Business Secretary Alok Sharma, the difference between an Australia-style deal with the EU and a No Deal Brexit is a “question of semantics”...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-...stralia-style/

Ferrari is a star; Sharma is a pirrock. I listened to it - Sharma was pathetic. He is a Reading MP and didn't even know which division Reading FC were in. Sharma was bad on the CV briefings too - never answered a question.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm afraid that the best legal minds in the country disagree with you.

Meanwhile, this is what looks likely to me.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------


I'm long on facts and short on emotion which is the counter-part to my previous discussant. The curency value impacts the wealth of the country and its ability to invest in education, the armed forces, healthcare and the technologies of the future. It's not an abstract figure.

My answer to all of the above questions is that it depends what we get in return.

All to play for at the car plants with new models on hold at Sunderland and Ellesmere Port delayed pending Boris giving the EU a good deal. And BMW is ceasing MINI production in the Netherlands in 2024 so potentially some of that could find its way to Cowley. Let's hope Boris doesn't revert to his F-business mindset.

What I think is in the capability of the UK govenment is:
1. Arrange for a staggered wind-down to new fishing arrangements.
2. Agree to a level playing field as in practice it won't have any on the UK as we are a rich country with no recent history of significant interevention in industry.
3. Come up with a compromise on the ECJ.

The "bill" is only needed where certain NI matters are not agreed with the EU. It is a legal requirement for there to be agreement by the "Joint Committee" on the details of various matters connected to the NI Protocol. If the EU doesn't agree to anything on those matters, then THEY are the ones breaking the NI Protocol.

Before the end of the transition period, the Joint Committee shall by decision establish the criteria for considering that a good brought into Northern Ireland from outside the Union is not at risk of subsequently being moved into the Union. The Joint Committee shall take into consideration, inter alia

What would happen WHEN the EU doesn't agree on something like that? Would that mean no goods whatever from GB to NI? In the absence of any agreements, then something has to be put in place.
Agenda for Joint Committee meeting of TODAY(19th Oct).

1. Introduction and opening remarks from the co-chairs
1.1 Stocktake of recent Specialised Committee meetings
1.2 Future Specialised Committee meetings
2. Updates on Implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement
2.1 Citizens’ rights
2.1.1 Joint Implementation Report
2.1.2 Progress on Joint Committee Decision on triangulation
2.2 Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
2.2.1 Progress on Joint Committee Decisions foreseen by the Protocol
2.2.2 Progress on Joint Committee Decision on correction of errors and omissions
2.3 Dispute settlement – Discussion on progress on Joint Committee Decision on the establishment of a list of arbitrators

1) It's about who has control, It's not a matter of simply shutting everybody else out. If the French wanted a staggered wind-down, they could've asked for one. They HAVEN'T. They want complete unfettered access. As I've previously pointed out, the situation would arise where fish caught in UK waters by EU boats wouldn't be subject to tariffs when sold in the EU, but those caught be UK boats would be. So much for a "level playing field".
2) The WTO has it's own set of rules for financial support. What is wrong with those? The UK level of support is nowhere near Germany's level of support, so again what are the EU complaining about?
3) Nothing to comprise about. Should be the same rules as for everybody else. Eg Goods sold by China into the EU are subject to ECJ rules, goods in China and outside the EU are not. Nothing complicated or unreasonable about that. Does the ECJ rule over goods produced and sold in Vietnam? Of course not.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by nomadking

1) It's about who has control, It's not a matter of simply shutting everybody else out. If the French wanted a staggered wind-down, they could've asked for one. They HAVEN'T. They want complete unfettered access. As I've previously pointed out, the situation would arise where fish caught in UK waters by EU boats wouldn't be subject to tariffs when sold in the EU, but those caught be UK boats would be. So much for a "level playing field".
2) The WTO has it's own set of rules for financial support. What is wrong with those? The UK level of support is nowhere near Germany's level of support, so again what are the EU complaining about?
3) Nothing to comprise about. Should be the same rules as for everybody else. Eg Goods sold by China into the EU are subject to ECJ rules, goods in China and outside the EU are not. Nothing complicated or unreasonable about that. Does the ECJ rule over goods produced and sold in Vietnam? Of course not.

Don't forget the 50 Flemish boats.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Don't forget the 50 Flemish boats.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, overturns ALL previous historical based rights. Still nothing to do with French fishing boats.
The EU CFP would've overridden that anyway, otherwise there would've been no quotas or rules for them. As the CFP must've superseded that agreement, it is no longer in place.

Link

Coronavirus: Republic of Ireland set to move to highest restrictions
People will be asked to work from home and not travel beyond either five or 10 kilometres - yet to be decided - from where they live.

Wouldn't that be against the GFA?