UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You missed the bit where Seph said we will grow our own economy.

Don't give us that old chestnut about 'no deal' being a disaster. Most trade around the world is on WTO terms. There are other places other than the EU where we can forge deals more suited to our requirements than was possible in the EU. Some are already virtually there, ready to be implemented in 2021.

Exactly.

And Covid has put the EU and the UK into the GDP doldrums and there is no sign that having a trade deal with the EU right now would lead to any better a long term outcome since everything is stagnant. So we rebuild in competition with the EU, which we always were anyway.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You missed the bit where Seph said we will grow our own economy.

Don't give us that old chestnut about 'no deal' being a disaster. Most trade around the world is on WTO terms. There are other places other than the EU where we can forge deals more suited to our requirements than was possible in the EU. Some are already virtually there, ready to be implemented in 2021.

Old Boy, wake up and smell the coffee! We're in the middle of a huge recession. The economy isn't growing.
Also, why resort to the straw man if you believe in your arguments? I've not said WTO terms will be a disaster but they will be very damaging. It's a Leaver Professor, Patrick Minford, who has said Brexit will lead to the end of UK manufacturing.
The trade deals you refer to replicate a couple that we already enjoy at the moment. Losing deals with the US, Canada and the EU will not advance our economy.

[Sephiroth]

My understanding is that the Guvmin's planned legislation is intended to allow the UK to alter its implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement in the event of a no deal scenario.

No doubt the legal analysis by pundits will emerge, but my take on this is that the WA was in part founded on the assumption that a trade deal would follow the transition period and should that not happen, then the UK would not be tied to certain parts of the WA.


What really tickles me here is the distraction this will cause within the higher EU echelons. It's a master stroke by the Guvmin.

Remainers, like Hugh, will/have bleat/ed that if we break a treaty, who else will trust us with a trade deal. That is extremely naive; the world is watching the drama of the Brexit negotiations and fully understand that the EU is trying to eat the UK's cake whilst accusing the UK of the reverse. Diplomacy will also smooth things out with our other partners. The outrage that the Remainers will display will also be amusing and provide much entertainment.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Because that treaty assumed that we would get a deal with the EU. If we don't get that, why would we continue with a treaty that assumed a trade deal?

Who wants their cake and eat it now?

The trade deal assumptions were written in the Political Declaration which we promptly shredded after the election

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The trade deal assumptions were written in the Political Declaration which we promptly shredded after the election

The WA states:

NOTING that in parallel with this Agreement, the Parties have made a Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

CONSIDERING that there is a need for both the United Kingdom and the Union to take all necessary steps to begin as soon as possible from the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the formal negotiations of one or several agreements governing their future relationship with a view to ensuring that, to the extent possible, those agreements apply from the end of the transition period,

The UK's legal advisors would likely have advised that the EU are not negotiating in good faith and thus the WA falls to the extent that a trade deal would otherwise have enshrined - if you get my meaning.

[1andrew1]

Good link from a Nissan insider which dispels many remainer and leaver myths on the situation for the company.
https://www.quora.com/Why-would-Niss...58e3&srid=3fST

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The WA states:



The UK's legal advisors would likely have advised that the EU are not negotiating in good faith and thus the WA falls to the extent that a trade deal would otherwise have enshrined - if you get my meaning.

That’s not how treaties work, unless it’s explicitly stated as such in the treaty (and it isn’t).

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Except that they aren’t.

The bill is worded so as to allow for a course of action, it does not implement that course of action. In circumstances such as these, the two are worlds apart. As drafted, it amounts to a threat, and taken in concert with other comments made over the weekend (no doubt all perfectly coordinated) is part of a strategy to pressure the EU into accepting that any permanent trade deal will not in any way leave the U.K. with a sort of associate membership status. Only once the EU drops its negotiating aim of keeping the U.K. aligned, will it be possible for a deal to be reached.

Just to check I understand what you’re saying - the UK isn’t breaking a treaty, it’s only threatening to break a treaty if it doesn’t get what it wants?

What happens if it doesn’t get what it wants?

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s not how treaties work, unless it’s explicitly stated as such in the treaty (and it isn’t).

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Just to check I understand what you’re saying - the UK isn’t breaking a treaty, it’s only threatening to break a treaty if it doesn’t get what it wants?

What happens if it doesn’t get what it wants?

Then it’s either bluffing, or it breaks a treaty. Either way, that’s not what they’re doing right now.

In fact, el gov is trying to clarify things this morning (apparently the weekend press was a leak) - they claim they’re trying to close a legal loophole that would exist in the event of No Deal, as the joint U.K./EU supervisory committee that seeks to ensure the WA is adhered to, would automatically cease to exist in those circumstances.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The trade deal assumptions were written in the Political Declaration which we promptly shredded after the election

The transitional arrangements, as set out in the documentation, were agreed on the basis that both sides would agree to a free trade agreement at the end of the negotiations.

The fact that the EU doesn't even recognise that we will be an independent country in January speaks volumes, and so why you are standing up for those tyrants I really don't know.

The fact remains, that if the EU recognises that we will not be part of their gang from January, we will have a trade deal and the treaty you are so concerned about will still be in tact.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s not how treaties work, unless it’s explicitly stated as such in the treaty (and it isn’t).

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Just to check I understand what you’re saying - the UK isn’t breaking a treaty, it’s only threatening to break a treaty if it doesn’t get what it wants?

What happens if it doesn’t get what it wants?

Isn't stated in the treaty? Where did you get that nonsense from?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The transitional arrangements, as set out in the documentation, were agreed on the basis that both sides would agree to a free trade agreement at the end of the negotiations.

The fact that the EU doesn't even recognise that we will be an independent country in January speaks volumes, and so why you are standing up for those tyrants I really don't know.

The fact remains, that if the EU recognises that we will not be part of their gang from January, we will have a trade deal and the treaty you are so concerned about will still be in tact.

Repeating it doesn’t make it so - can you highlight which part of the WA supports your proposition, please?

From the EU Commission

[nomadking]

1) It's a general principle with International Treaties that "good faith" has to be adhered to.
2) Article 50 of the EU treaty allowing states to leave the EU also stipulates "good faith".
3) The Brexit treaty stipulates "good faith" in Article 5.

Link

Good faith

45.Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement states that the UK and EU will, “in full mutual respect and good faith, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from this Agreement”. It imposes an obligation on the parties to “take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement”.
46.Should any disputes arise between the parties to the Agreement, they will fall to be determined against the background of this provision. The Government’s December 2018 paper The Legal Position on the Withdrawal Agreement notes that “the principle of good faith is a rule of customary international law, as has been recognised by the CJEU and the International Court of Justice”

Link

On Monday 10 December 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union held in Case C-621/18 Wightman & Others that Article 50 TEU can be revoked unilaterally by the United Kingdom, without any agreement required from the other 27 Member States.

If the EU considers fish in foreign waters to do with as they please, then that knocks out all current EU fishing agreements with non-EU countries, on the basis that the EU isn't following those agreements in "good faith".

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the EU considers fish in foreign waters to do with as they please, then that knocks out all current EU fishing agreements with non-EU countries, on the basis that the EU isn't following those agreements in "good faith".

It doesn't so that's sadly more irrelevance.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It doesn't so that's sadly more irrelevance.

If the EU goes into a fishing agreement with another country on the basis they are going to respect the rights of that country over the fish, they then can't say "It may be your waters, but it's not your fish". There is no longer "good faith" that the EU will follow the agreement.
You can't in "good faith" come to an agreement over rights you don't consider exist in the first place.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The transitional arrangements, as set out in the documentation, were agreed on the basis that both sides would agree to a free trade agreement at the end of the negotiations.

Only in the political declaration. The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't stipulate any deal needing to be in place after the Transition Period, only the continuation of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (protecting the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, another international agreement)

The current Government voted for this