Olddog wrote:

Yes if the UK abide by the international rues and treaties. And of course be ready to see trade deals under consideration.

I’m not 100% sure what you are meaning but, by that are you saying if the UK remains in a form of customs union with the EU?

Olddog wrote:

Yes if the UK abide by the international rues and treaties. And of course be ready to see trade deals under consideration.

I was under the impression that if they leave the EU they would have to side trade deals with everyone and be a signatory to whatever treaties the UN etc demand...was not thinking they were trying to be a rouge nation, all the treaties that the EU have would no longer be applicable since they would no longer be a member.

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Yes if the UK abide by the international rues and treaties. And of course be ready to see trade deals under consideration.

I was under the impression that if they leave the EU they would have to side trade deals with everyone and be a signatory to whatever treaties the UN etc demand...was not thinking they were trying to be a rouge nation, all the treaties that the EU have would no longer be applicable since they would no longer be a member.

Correct once the UK leaves the EU all treaty and trade deals go with them, but for trade to continue unhindered untill formal trade deals are put in place the UK is rolling over some of these Mutual Recognition Agreement that will ensure continuity of trade, since the EU/UK do not have an free trade agreement hence the need for a formal deal. Until then without an agreement with the EU the UK/EU will have to trade under WTO rules.

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/ ... ssion=true

I do wonder how much truth there is to this.

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/676593/European-Central-Bank-says-it-NEEDS-Britain-in-the-EU-or-euro-could-go-UNDER/amp?__twitter_impression=true

I do wonder how much truth there is to this.

Hi mate can you redo the link please as it going no where for me, what’s it about?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So is accusing the EU to keep the UK deliberately hostage with the backstop, which you did. You do not think it is necessary to elaborate on that. Kind of strange to uphold that threshold, if you do not obey it yourself.

Ok.....if the UK signs the WA and the backstop is triggered, can the UK freely withdraw from the the union without the consent of the EU?

You mean can the UK breach and violate the very treaty it had just signed without there being repercussions as the Brexit fantasists imagine it?

In a word: No!

A101 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Yes if the UK abide by the international rues and treaties. And of course be ready to see trade deals under consideration.

I was under the impression that if they leave the EU they would have to side trade deals with everyone and be a signatory to whatever treaties the UN etc demand...was not thinking they were trying to be a rouge nation, all the treaties that the EU have would no longer be applicable since they would no longer be a member.

Correct once the UK leaves the EU all treaty and trade deals go with them, but for trade to continue unhindered untill formal trade deals are put in place the UK is rolling over some of these Mutual Recognition Agreement that will ensure continuity of trade, since the EU/UK do not have an free trade agreement hence the need for a formal deal. Until then without an agreement with the EU the UK/EU will have to trade under WTO rules.

As the only country on the planet, with every other member of the WTO (notably including the EU again, but also the US who currently want to sabotage the WTO wherever possible) having a veto on any changes you might want to do, plus the WA still waiting to be signed as a precondition of any new deal with the EU, which pretty much is the precondition for any other country (except a few rogue ones, maybe) touching the UK with a barge pole.

So the Brexiter playbook still hinges on the UK bleeding out on the EU's carpet being all the leverage it's got.

Too bad that tarps have already been invented.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So is accusing the EU to keep the UK deliberately hostage with the backstop, which you did. You do not think it is necessary to elaborate on that. Kind of strange to uphold that threshold, if you do not obey it yourself.

Ok.....if the UK signs the WA and the backstop is triggered, can the UK freely withdraw from the the union without the consent of the EU?

You mean can the UK breach and violate the very treaty it had just signed without there being repercussions as the Brexit fantasists imagine it?

In a word: No!

Yes sorry my mistake TM actually did sign it, but has unable to be ratified by either the EU or the UK parliament for it to come into force, so therefore no treaty violations have taken place, next

A101 wrote:

Yes sorry my mistake TM actually did sign it, but has unable to be ratified by either the EU or the UK parliament for it to come into force, so therefore no treaty violations have taken place, next

No, which is why there will be no future deal with the EU as things stand until it is ratified, either soon or after an extremely damaging additional detour through the wilderness (which might already convince the northern irish majority to rather sever its ties to that lunatic posse and hitching themselves to the Republic instead, thus solving at least that part of the problem).

Klaus wrote:

So the Brexiter playbook still hinges on the UK bleeding out on the EU's carpet being all the leverage it's got.

Case in point: Discredited liar and internationally despised Boris Johnson now tries to gather support by (again) demanding the UK to simply default on its commitments to the EU.

Monty Python would have balked at the absurdity.
Now it's just passing as normal ruling party politics in the UK.

It does have some residual entertainment value, though, in a horror-satire kind of way...

Klaus wrote:

As the only country on the planet, with every other member of the WTO (notably including the EU again, but also the US who currently want to sabotage the WTO wherever possible) having a veto on any changes you might want to do, plus the WA still waiting to be signed as a precondition of any new deal with the EU, which pretty much is the precondition for any other country (except a few rogue ones, maybe) touching the UK with a barge pole.

So the Brexiter playbook still hinges on the UK bleeding out on the EU's carpet being all the leverage it's got.

Too bad that tarps have already been invented.

It seems you may have rushed this post as it’s incomprehensible, all I can make of it is you want to sabotage the WTO, and seem to be mistaken about UK signing the WA once the UK has left the EU on No-Deal,,,,,,,, once we are out we are no longer bound by the Treaty of Lisbon. And if by some miracle we did rejoin under the full terms of the Treaty the UK would not have invoked A50 and not in force, so why would we then sign the WA..........Also if a number of countries are saying it’s a precondition that we sign the WA before the would negotiate a free trade agreement, how would that actually work as then the UK cannot complete negotiations as that is done by the EU.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes sorry my mistake TM actually did sign it, but has unable to be ratified by either the EU or the UK parliament for it to come into force, so therefore no treaty violations have taken place, next

No, which is why there will be no future deal with the EU as things stand until it is ratified, either soon or after an extremely damaging additional detour through the wilderness (which might already convince the northern irish majority to rather sever its ties to that lunatic posse and hitching themselves to the Republic instead, thus solving at least that part of the problem).

Well that’s fine with me, we shall not waste time trying to conclude a future trade relationship with the EU under those terms or conditions

Klaus wrote:

Case in point: Discredited liar and internationally despised Boris Johnson now tries to gather support by (again) demanding the UK to simply default on its commitments to the EU.

Source please

Klaus wrote:

Monty Python would have balked at the absurdity.
Now it's just passing as normal ruling party politics in the UK.

It does have some residual entertainment value, though, in a horror-satire kind of way...

Yes it’s entertaining watching you bring up the ridiculous supposed comparisons, but whatever floats your boat.

A101 wrote:

It seems you may have rushed this post as it’s incomprehensible, all I can make of it is you want to sabotage the WTO,

Nope. The thing is that Brexiters' plans involve positioning the UK in a hostile stance towards the EU, undermining it via tax dumping etc., and those politicians and their unfortunate population would find that having discomforting consequences, if unsurprising ones.

and seem to be mistaken about UK signing the WA once the UK has left the EU on No-Deal,,,,,,,, once we are out we are no longer bound by the Treaty of Lisbon. And if by some miracle we did rejoin under the full terms of the Treaty the UK would not have invoked A50 and not in force, so why would we then sign the WA..........

The WA is not about Article 50. It is about the relationship between the UK and the EU after the UK's exit, specifically stipulating citizens' rights, financial obligations and – last, but not least at all – the irish border staying open.

Brexit fantasists have sold to their gullible audience that a no-deal Brexit was somehow an end run around those stipulations, but unsurprisingly for anyone living in the real world it actually isn't: The same points will still wait on the same table in Brussels when the UK is done with its presumable temper tantrum and comes seeking future accomodations with the EU again.

Also if a number of countries are saying it’s a precondition that we sign the WA before the would negotiate a free trade agreement, how would that actually work as then the UK cannot complete negotiations as that is done by the EU.

Nope again: Those other countries want to see the future relationship with the EU plausibly solidified. They actually don't care about the WA other than the UK not defaulting on its standing obligations, because why would anybody trust a country with some new treaties which is doing that?

So time is even more pressing than you might have thought – but instead of having "50" new trade deals only having (parts of) two should already have told you that.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Case in point: Discredited liar and internationally despised Boris Johnson now tries to gather support by (again) demanding the UK to simply default on its commitments to the EU.

Source please

I thought you were aware of your own national news.

But since you don't seem to be, here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... vorce-bill

He's not calling it that, but that is what that would actually mean and how it would be perceived by the international community: The UK defaulting on its standing obligations.

Klaus wrote:

Monty Python would have balked at the absurdity.
Now it's just passing as normal ruling party politics in the UK.

It does have some residual entertainment value, though, in a horror-satire kind of way...

Yes it’s entertaining watching you bring up the ridiculous supposed comparisons, but whatever floats your boat.

Consider my surprise watching actual reality effortlessly overtaking the crown jewel of english satire!

Klaus wrote:

Nope. The thing is that Brexiters' plans involve positioning the UK in a hostile stance towards the EU, undermining it via tax dumping etc., and those politicians and their unfortunate population would find that having discomforting consequences, if unsurprising ones.

So you actually didn't say that " other member of the WTO (notably including the EU again, but also the US who currently want to sabotage the WTO wherever possible)" so its all right for the EU to undermine international treaties as long as its in your favour, but once the UK leaves it cannot do as it sees fit legally under those same treaties, and hence we are being hostile

Klaus wrote:

The WA is not about Article 50. It is about the relationship between the UK and the EU after the UK's exit, specifically stipulating citizens' rights, financial obligations and – last, but not least at all – the irish border staying open.

Mmmmm………….Seems to me you are talking about A50 Section 2 (future relationship)

Klaus wrote:

Brexit fantasists have sold to their gullible audience that a no-deal Brexit was somehow an end run around those stipulations, but unsurprisingly for anyone living in the real world it actually isn't:

Seems more like that we are not being so gullible about what is a good deal and what is a bad deal for the UK, even a majority remain parliament can see that one

Klaus wrote:

The same points will still wait on the same table in Brussels when the UK is done with its presumable temper tantrum and comes seeking future accomodations with the EU again.

President Trump positioned only a few days ago that the NHS was fair game when it comes to doing a trade deal with the US, he soon got the message PDQ that wasn't the case, just like the EU will do about any future negotiations between EU/UK

Klaus wrote:

Nope again: Those other countries want to see the future relationship with the EU plausibly solidified. They actually don't care about the WA other than the UK not defaulting on its standing obligations, because why would anybody trust a country with some new treaties which is doing that?

If they don't care about the WA why would they make them a precondition, but do tell me what standing treaty have we defaulted on?

Klaus wrote:

So time is even more pressing than you might have thought – but instead of having "50" new trade deals only having (parts of) two should already have told you that.

You seem to think that the UK is operating in a vacuum, if and when No-Deal happens, nations already trading with the UK will not want to see any disruptions as that has a flow on effect within their own economies, that's why they don't give two stuffs about the WA as it will not directly affect them with mutual recognition agreements until formal agreements are put in place.

Klaus wrote:

I thought you were aware of your own national news.

But since you don't seem to be, here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... vorce-bill

No I don't see every titbit of the news, but thanks for the link, but withholding the divorce bill in the case of no deal has been around for a while, as no binding agreement is in place stopping payment would be one of the first cab off the rank on the to-do list. not really news to me

As someone did dare to complain to the mods that my post comparing UK prime minister candidate to clowns, I just decided to copy past the BoJo description from the sunday times today:

"That he's a habitual liar, a cheat, a conspirator with a criminal pal to have an offending journalist's ribs broken, a cruel betrayer of the women he seduces, a politician who connived in a bid for a court order to suppress mention of a daughter he fathered, a do-nothing mayor of London and the worst foreign secretary in living memory… such truths are apparently already "priced in" to Mr Johnson. One just hopes the actual electorate are informed that his rascality is already "priced in" and they’re not to bother their little heads with such horrors."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/let-me-assure-you-boris-johnson-will-fail-as-pm-hl7b6tkx5

I think I was very polite

A101 wrote:

So you actually didn't say that " other member of the WTO (notably including the EU again, but also the US who currently want to sabotage the WTO wherever possible)" so its all right for the EU to undermine international treaties as long as its in your favour, but once the UK leaves it cannot do as it sees fit legally under those same treaties, and hence we are being hostile

My post is quite clear: The EU is a veto-wielding member of the WTO. And so is the USA which currently under Trump tries to undermine and weaken the very WTO at whose mercy Brexit hardliners want to throw the UK's future.

Mmmmm………….Seems to me you are talking about A50 Section 2 (future relationship)

The political declaration is as far as that is concerned and you are completely mistaken in trying to imply anything else which simply isn't there.

Seems more like that we are not being so gullible about what is a good deal and what is a bad deal for the UK, even a majority remain parliament can see that one

Brexit is a shitty deal for the UK any way you turn it, and the WA merely exposes some of the most marginal aspects of that turd which actually aren't all that problematic, all the made-up ERG hissy fits notwithstanding.

It will get really juicy only when future relationships will be on the table – and the one with the EU will actually be one of the less horrific negotiations for the UK. The one with the USA will be much, much worse as you've seen from the american announcements on the coming negotiations!

President Trump positioned only a few days ago that the NHS was fair game when it comes to doing a trade deal with the US, he soon got the message PDQ that wasn't the case, just like the EU will do about any future negotiations between EU/UK

There were some feeble denials of trapped brexiters in the UK, but the USA will absolutely insist on the NHS and agricultural standards being on the chopping block or they simply won't give you a deal. And freshly stripped of all existing EU/US agreements and alone in the world, the UK would have no leverage and would just have to fold, and that is the only way Trump knows how to "negotiate" and he'll exploit that opportunity to the max.

Did you actually wonder why the EU and the USA had just a bunch of separate treaties (which the UK will all lose with Brexit even so!) and no overarching FTA? Those have been some of the reason why!

The difference is that the USA is very much attracted to access to the EU Single Market and it will make concessions to get it. With the UK, well, not so much – the UK has no leverage and will have to fold or stay outside the door while the EU keeps trading at much better terms through the separate agreements which the UK will have thrown away.

If they don't care about the WA why would they make them a precondition,

As I said: The other countries don't care about the WA, they care about the UK's future relationship with the EU which the UK just can't get unless the WA has been agreed and ratified! (And that is just as true after a no-deal Brexit as it is now with the WA still on the table for a semi-orderly Brexit complete with transition period.)

but do tell me what standing treaty have we defaulted on?

Boris is again shaking the paper maché club of defaulting on the financial obligations from the WA, and if that should in fact become the UK's official position, that would crash the UK's credit rating through the floor and take most of the UK's prospects of ever gaining any new trade deals with it.

It's an extraordinarily dumb ploy aimed at the most blinkered followers of Brexit and with near-zero real life survival chances. Grandstanding at its worst, but that's just Boris for you!

You seem to think that the UK is operating in a vacuum, if and when No-Deal happens, nations already trading with the UK will not want to see any disruptions as that has a flow on effect within their own economies, that's why they don't give two stuffs about the WA as it will not directly affect them with mutual recognition agreements until formal agreements are put in place.

Almost all other countries have much more valuable trade relations with the EU than with the UK specifically and they simply won't offer any deals to the UK which could fall apart when the UK eventually gets around to a deal with the EU or – worse! – which could jeopardize their own trade relations with the EU.

The UK will see warm handshakes and friendly words all around, but no actual trade offers before it will have settled its accounts with the EU and until it has its future relations with the EU firmed up at least provisionally.

No I don't see every titbit of the news, but thanks for the link, but withholding the divorce bill in the case of no deal has been around for a while, as no binding agreement is in place stopping payment would be one of the first cab off the rank on the to-do list. not really news to me

Yeah, that particular piece of insanity has been around for a bit, but now the difference is that it's closing in on No.10, and that would have actual repercussions for the first time.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

So you actually didn't say that " other member of the WTO (notably including the EU again, but also the US who currently want to sabotage the WTO wherever possible)" so its all right for the EU to undermine international treaties as long as its in your favour, but once the UK leaves it cannot do as it sees fit legally under those same treaties, and hence we are being hostile

My post is quite clear: The EU is a veto-wielding member of the WTO. And so is the USA which currently under Trump tries to undermine and weaken the very WTO at whose mercy Brexit hardliners want to throw the UK's future.

Mmmmm………….Seems to me you are talking about A50 Section 2 (future relationship)

The political declaration is as far as that is concerned and you are completely mistaken in trying to imply anything else which simply isn't there.

Seems more like that we are not being so gullible about what is a good deal and what is a bad deal for the UK, even a majority remain parliament can see that one

Brexit is a shitty deal for the UK any way you turn it, and the WA merely exposes some of the most marginal aspects of that turd which actually aren't all that problematic, all the made-up ERG hissy fits notwithstanding.

It will get really juicy only when future relationships will be on the table – and the one with the EU will actually be one of the less horrific negotiations for the UK. The one with the USA will be much, much worse as you've seen from the american announcements on the coming negotiations!

President Trump positioned only a few days ago that the NHS was fair game when it comes to doing a trade deal with the US, he soon got the message PDQ that wasn't the case, just like the EU will do about any future negotiations between EU/UK

There were some feeble denials of trapped brexiters in the UK, but the USA will absolutely insist on the NHS and agricultural standards being on the chopping block or they simply won't give you a deal. And freshly stripped of all existing EU/US agreements and alone in the world, the UK would have no leverage and would just have to fold, and that is the only way Trump knows how to "negotiate" and he'll exploit that opportunity to the max.

Did you actually wonder why the EU and the USA had just a bunch of separate treaties (which the UK will all lose with Brexit even so!) and no overarching FTA? Those have been some of the reason why!

The difference is that the USA is very much attracted to access to the EU Single Market and it will make concessions to get it. With the UK, well, not so much – the UK has no leverage and will have to fold or stay outside the door while the EU keeps trading at much better terms through the separate agreements which the UK will have thrown away.

If they don't care about the WA why would they make them a precondition,

As I said: The other countries don't care about the WA, they care about the UK's future relationship with the EU which the UK just can't get unless the WA has been agreed and ratified! (And that is just as true after a no-deal Brexit as it is now with the WA still on the table for a semi-orderly Brexit complete with transition period.)

but do tell me what standing treaty have we defaulted on?

Boris is again shaking the paper maché club of defaulting on the financial obligations from the WA, and if that should in fact become the UK's official position, that would crash the UK's credit rating through the floor and take most of the UK's prospects of ever gaining any new trade deals with it.

It's an extraordinarily dumb ploy aimed at the most blinkered followers of Brexit and with near-zero real life survival chances. Grandstanding at its worst, but that's just Boris for you!

You seem to think that the UK is operating in a vacuum, if and when No-Deal happens, nations already trading with the UK will not want to see any disruptions as that has a flow on effect within their own economies, that's why they don't give two stuffs about the WA as it will not directly affect them with mutual recognition agreements until formal agreements are put in place.

Almost all other countries have much more valuable trade relations with the EU than with the UK specifically and they simply won't offer any deals to the UK which could fall apart when the UK eventually gets around to a deal with the EU or – worse! – which could jeopardize their own trade relations with the EU.

The UK will see warm handshakes and friendly words all around, but no actual trade offers before it will have settled its accounts with the EU and until it has its future relations with the EU firmed up at least provisionally.

No I don't see every titbit of the news, but thanks for the link, but withholding the divorce bill in the case of no deal has been around for a while, as no binding agreement is in place stopping payment would be one of the first cab off the rank on the to-do list. not really news to me

Yeah, that particular piece of insanity has been around for a bit, but now the difference is that it's closing in on No.10, and that would have actual repercussions for the first time.

Does the EU pay you for your hysterical propaganda?

It is hilarious reading.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Does the EU pay you for your hysterical propaganda?

It is hilarious reading.

Contrary to you I'm just not hell-bent on setting my own home on fire. And the European Union is very much my home, the same way my country, my region and my local community are.

And I defend my home instead of throwing more gasoline on the blaze the way you're doing with yours.

I'm just somewhat relieved that there's a water-filled moat between us.

Klaus wrote:

My post is quite clear: The EU is a veto-wielding member of the WTO. And so is the USA which currently under Trump tries to undermine and weaken the very WTO at whose mercy Brexit hardliners want to throw the UK's future.

No, It was quite clear that you believe the UK will be hostile in negotiations towards the EU in future trade relations, just as when you believe that the EU comes up smelling like roses when they are far from it. The UK is still also a full member of the WTO and will have those same rights at the WTO as do all 164 members

Klaus wrote:

The political declaration is as far as that is concerned and you are completely mistaken in trying to imply anything else which simply isn't there.

The Political Declaration is a political agreement and is not a legal treaty unlike the WA

Klaus wrote:

Brexit is a shitty deal for the UK any way you turn it, and the WA merely exposes some of the most marginal aspects of that turd which actually aren't all that problematic, all the made-up ERG hissy fits notwithstanding.

You believe its a shitty deal as you continually only look at one aspect of the deal, and you entitled to your opinion which does not mean its fact

Klaus wrote:

It will get really juicy only when future relationships will be on the table – and the one with the EU will actually be one of the less horrific negotiations for the UK. The one with the USA will be much, much worse as you've seen from the american announcements on the coming negotiations!

As I have said before you can bring up what ever you want at the table, if its not in our interests that's as far as it gets

Klaus wrote:

There were some feeble denials of trapped brexiters in the UK, but the USA will absolutely insist on the NHS and agricultural standards being on the chopping block or they simply won't give you a deal. And freshly stripped of all existing EU/US agreements and alone in the world, the UK would have no leverage and would just have to fold, and that is the only way Trump knows how to "negotiate" and he'll exploit that opportunity to the max.

That is pure speculation on your part, the NHS is politically sensitive to the UK Trump can insist al he wants if its off the table well we can all just walk away

Klaus wrote:

Did you actually wonder why the EU and the USA had just a bunch of separate treaties (which the UK will all lose with Brexit even so!) and no overarching FTA? Those have been some of the reason why!

Your referring to the TEC, its only natural that nations want to stream line trade and other areas of mutual agreement, but at the end of the day the WTO is still the defining treaty between the US/EU for trade until an agreed FTA is in place

Klaus wrote:

The difference is that the USA is very much attracted to access to the EU Single Market and it will make concessions to get it. With the UK, well, not so much – the UK has no leverage and will have to fold or stay outside the door while the EU keeps trading at much better terms through the separate agreements which the UK will have thrown away.

Well its not a revelation that nations want to trade with members of the EU, but tell me how did the TTIP negotiations go you really persuaded them after years of negotiations hey

Klaus wrote:

As I said: The other countries don't care about the WA, they care about the UK's future relationship with the EU which the UK just can't get unless the WA has been agreed and ratified! (And that is just as true after a no-deal Brexit as it is now with the WA still on the table for a semi-orderly Brexit complete with transition period.)

I still fail to reconcile how if the EU/UK cant agree on a future relationship that is disadvantageous to others negotiating with the UK on trade if anything it puts them in a more advantage position if these nation do not currently have an agreement with the EU

Klaus wrote:

Boris is again shaking the paper maché club of defaulting on the financial obligations from the WA, and if that should in fact become the UK's official position, that would crash the UK's credit rating through the floor and take most of the UK's prospects of ever gaining any new trade deals with it.

Your making presumptions here, you still have shown what legally defined treaty we have defaulted on.

Klaus wrote:

It's an extraordinarily dumb ploy aimed at the most blinkered followers of Brexit and with near-zero real life survival chances. Grandstanding at its worst, but that's just Boris for you!

Gee Boris really gets under your skin

Klaus wrote:

Almost all other countries have much more valuable trade relations with the EU than with the UK specifically and they simply won't offer any deals to the UK which could fall apart when the UK eventually gets around to a deal with the EU or – worse! – which could jeopardize their own trade relations with the EU.

Again pure speculation

Klaus wrote:

The UK will see warm handshakes and friendly words all around, but no actual trade offers before it will have settled its accounts with the EU and until it has its future relations with the EU firmed up at least provisionally.

Again pure speculation

Klaus wrote:

Yeah, that particular piece of insanity has been around for a bit, but now the difference is that it's closing in on No.10, and that would have actual repercussions for the first time.

So you would hand over billions of £ without a ratified agreement, I hardly think so.

Just an update for you Klaus. I picked up this titbit of the news, seem like you are again widely of the mark!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48577667

Bit more than just a handshake, looks like the extension may have worked in our favour just a bit

Klaus wrote:

Klaus wrote:
Almost all other countries have much more valuable trade relations with the EU than with the UK specifically and they simply won't offer any deals to the UK which could fall apart when the UK eventually gets around to a deal with the EU or – worse! – which could jeopardize their own trade relations with the EU.

&

Klaus wrote:

Klaus wrote:
The UK will see warm handshakes and friendly words all around, but no actual trade offers before it will have settled its accounts with the EU and until it has its future relations with the EU firmed up at least provisionally.

Those "continuity" trade deals are similar than extensions that UK got from EU to kick the can along the road. They are not permanent. There needs to be actual negotiations. South Korea is the biggest one that decided to go this route as others that UK has them with are smaller.

Notably the really significant big countries have indicated they are not going to sign such "continuity" deals as they think they are going to get the most favourable terms negotiated when UK is going through maximum no deal pain. South Korea wants these bigger countries to do the negotiations first and then they will use that as a starting point when they are negotiating the actual trade deals that the "continuity" trade deal is only an extension to avoid negotiating right now.

I don't think there is an error in what Klaus was writing. Another extension from a midsize country is no big deal.

Ertro wrote:

Those "continuity" trade deals are similar than extensions that UK got from EU to kick the can along the road. They are not permanent. There needs to be actual negotiations. South Korea is the biggest one that decided to go this route as others that UK has them with are smaller.

Notably the really significant big countries have indicated they are not going to sign such "continuity" deals as they think they are going to get the most favourable terms negotiated when UK is going through maximum no deal pain. South Korea wants these bigger countries to do the negotiations first and then they will use that as a starting point when they are negotiating the actual trade deals that the "continuity" trade deal is only an extension to avoid negotiating right now.

I don't think there is an error in what Klaus was writing. Another extension from a midsize country is no big deal.

Correct we actually can’t sign any free trade agreements untill we actually leave, It appears from the the article suggests it’s an enduring agreement to commence from the time we leave the EU they are not exactly the same as the quotas will actually change from what is imported/exported as a whole to the EU and will have to reflect that.

As for the SK agreement untill the government updates the webpage on agreements signed idont know if it’s perpetuity or not.

The only bigger nations to what you refer to are Japan, China the US and perhaps India out of that list only Japan have a agreement with the EU as it has only just come into effect it should not have much bearing on it as the UK signed an agreement for renewed beef exports to japan before the agreement had taken affect

According to "the guardian" uk economy stagnates and even decreases;
"UK economy shrinks after Brexit car factory shutdowns
Vehicle output falls by 24% as firms including BMW and Peugeot pause production"

olle wrote:

According to "the guardian" uk economy stagnates and even decreases;
"UK economy shrinks after Brexit car factory shutdowns
Vehicle output falls by 24% as firms including BMW and Peugeot pause production"

While Brexit is a factor because of the uncertainty surrounding the exit date and if it’s an orderly exit or not, but the actual pause in production has been known for some time as they have moved annual shutdown to hopefully minimise disruptions in production down the track

A101 wrote:

Just an update for you Klaus. I picked up this titbit of the news, seem like you are again widely of the mark!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48577667

Bit more than just a handshake, looks like the extension may have worked in our favour just a bit

According to the article the agreement is "roughly in line with the terms of the existing Korea-EU FTA." (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48577667 ), which implies that the agreement can either be better, or worse than the current agreement under which the UK trades with South Korea. Given that I would expect that the UK government would celibate any agreement better than they currently have, I would assume that the agreement is worse (though not by much) than the current one. Then again, I haven't seen the content of the agreement (anyone who does?).

LJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Just an update for you Klaus. I picked up this titbit of the news, seem like you are again widely of the mark!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48577667

Bit more than just a handshake, looks like the extension may have worked in our favour just a bit

According to the article the agreement is "roughly in line with the terms of the existing Korea-EU FTA." (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48577667 ), which implies that the agreement can either be better, or worse than the current agreement under which the UK trades with South Korea. Given that I would expect that the UK government would celibate any agreement better than they currently have, I would assume that the agreement is worse (though not by much) than the current one. Then again, I haven't seen the content of the agreement (anyone who does?).

It will not be better than until the agreement is published we won’t know but I suspect there would be variations as some areas will still be very specific to the EU ( website has not been updated to reflect new agreement with SK)

Details of this pseudo-FTA are deliberately kept unavailable by the UK government, similar to how details of the trade continuation deal with Switzerland from a couple of months ago were tried to be kept unannounced till the news about it would be a off the front pages, the reason in both cases it quite obvious: there are very sobering/humiliating terms attatched!

In the Swiss deal it was quickly discovered through publication of the document on the Swiss government website that there will be very stict non-reciprocal quota set to the number of UK nationals that can come to live and work in Switzerland post Brexit, for instance!

In case of South Korea, reports from Korea suggest the the deal with the UK has a sunset clause and is valid for just 2 years, so it's indeed just another trade continuation deal, yet already modified to reflect the weakened UK stance asap, hence the fact it can not be called a trade continuation deal!

A nice example of this weakened position is reportedly the provision that all current and future SK`s EU-based manufacturers will be able to import freely into the UK even in the absence of a EU-UK FTA, all without reciprocality whatsoever, of course. Not to mention this tarif free import provision is a hugely problematic provision if indeed the UK defaults to WTO terms for its EU trade, because it will then become available to all WTO members producing in the EU and exporting to the UK!

Incredible terms indeed?!
I am beginning to understand Trump's enthusiasm from last week!
Go, go, go, Liam!

A101 wrote:

Just an update for you Klaus. I picked up this titbit of the news, seem like you are again widely of the mark!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48577667

Bit more than just a handshake, looks like the extension may have worked in our favour just a bit

Klaus wrote:

Klaus wrote:
Almost all other countries have much more valuable trade relations with the EU than with the UK specifically and they simply won't offer any deals to the UK which could fall apart when the UK eventually gets around to a deal with the EU or – worse! – which could jeopardize their own trade relations with the EU.

&

Klaus wrote:

Klaus wrote:
The UK will see warm handshakes and friendly words all around, but no actual trade offers before it will have settled its accounts with the EU and until it has its future relations with the EU firmed up at least provisionally.

While I'm not against free trade in general, I'm pretty sure plenty of people are not too happy about the EU-South Korea FTA, because it mainly means plenty of cheaper Korean cars in our market.

Aesma wrote:

While I'm not against free trade in general, I'm pretty sure plenty of people are not too happy about the EU-South Korea FTA, because it mainly means plenty of cheaper Korean cars in our market.

Compete then. Kia's cars are pretty decent and they allow citizens on lower incomes to afford a new automobile. I think that's a good thing, and that the European Auto Industry (and particularly the German Auto Industry) needs a bit of impetus to modernise and innovate.

Germany has given up on cheap cars with Opel now being French.

I'm just saying, UK auto workers that are already in deep trouble will probably not be thrilled by the news.

Aesma wrote:

Germany has given up on cheap cars with Opel now being French.

I'm just saying, UK auto workers that are already in deep trouble will probably not be thrilled by the news.

The auto industry, unfortunately, is under a great deal of pressure. In the UK, that is not least because of government targets designed to eliminate the manufacturing of new petrol and diesel vehicles in the coming decades. We have to accept that the auto industry is undergoing transformation and that the status quo cannot continue, Brexit or not. I would prefer to see the UK throw itself wholeheartedly into the development of the next generation of vehicles. Dyson is already doing that and will soon launch its electric car.

All these candidates admitting or being forced to admit that they took all kinds of drugs, from the uptight tory party, that is too funny.

A101 wrote:

That is pure speculation on your part, the NHS is politically sensitive to the UK Trump can insist al he wants if its off the table well we can all just walk away

So what happens then to a UK > US trade deal when you walk away? I think Trump will be under huge pressure from the Financial industry in the US to demand it, and Farage will be pushing him along with Banks as well. The UK has no bargaining position in that deal, what does the UK have to sell the US wants? It's a one way street.

Also...

There will be no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade deal if Brexit puts at risk the 1998 peace accord between Ireland and Northern Ireland, U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday.

“We must ensure that nothing happens in the Brexit discussions that imperils the Good Friday accord, including but not limited to the seamless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland,” Pelosi told the Irish parliament,

Klaus wrote:

It's an extraordinarily dumb ploy aimed at the most blinkered followers of Brexit and with near-zero real life survival chances. Grandstanding at its worst, but that's just Boris for you!

A101 wrote:

Gee Boris really gets under your skin

He doesn't get under yours?

The guy is a blabbering fool. He has no ability to manage budgets/ projects (proven track record). He's an embrassment to the country, and if he becomes PM will show just how fall the UK has fallen. I don't like either of them but at least Hunt and Gove can string a sentence together.

Klaus wrote:

The UK will see warm handshakes and friendly words all around, but no actual trade offers before it will have settled its accounts with the EU and until it has its future relations with the EU firmed up at least provisionally.

A101 wrote:

Again pure speculation

What we've seen so far with those countries who have objected to the UK's schedules at the WTO, those countries that are continuously bounded around as 'friends' who we should be doing more trade with, it's a perfectly valid thing to say. Ignoring the fact other countries in the EU do more trade with those countries than the UK does, which proves it's not the EU holding the UK back.

Reinhardt wrote:

So what happens then to a UK > US trade deal when you walk away?

Same thing that happens when the EU/US talks broke down, you continue trade on the status quo

Reinhardt wrote:

I think Trump will be under huge pressure from the Financial industry in the US to demand it, and Farage will be pushing him along with Banks as well. The UK has no bargaining position in that deal, what does the UK have to sell the US wants? It's a one way street.

Oh I have no doubt that pressure will be brought to bear, it’s a case of holding your ground, just as I have been advocating that no deal is better than a bad deal also goes to trade with US, if it was a one way street we would not be exporting to the US. It’s not all doom and gloom.


Also...

There will be no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade deal if Brexit puts at risk the 1998 peace accord between Ireland and Northern Ireland, U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday.

“We must ensure that nothing happens in the Brexit discussions that imperils the Good Friday accord, including but not limited to the seamless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland,” Pelosi told the Irish parliament,

Catch 22 isn’t it, they want to block a trade deal if we leave on no deal, but we can’t have a trade deal either if we sign the WA, so at the end of the day there’s nothing to lose if we try.

Reinhardt wrote:

He doesn't get under yours?

Do I like the bloke not particularly, but I don’t want or need to give him anymore airtime than I have too

Reinhardt wrote:

The guy is a blabbering fool. He has no ability to manage budgets/ projects (proven track record). He's an embrassment to the country, and if he becomes PM will show just how fall the UK has fallen. I don't like either of them but at least Hunt and Gove can string a sentence together.

Agree but I don’t get a say if he becomes PM

Reinhardt wrote:

What we've seen so far with those countries who have objected to the UK's schedules at the WTO, those countries that are continuously bounded around as 'friends' who we should be doing more trade with, it's a perfectly valid thing to say. Ignoring the fact other countries in the EU do more trade with those countries than the UK does, which proves it's not the EU holding the UK back.

I’m not really sure what your getting at here, Klaus was saying no one will trade with the UK unless we honour our commitments with the EU and have the future relationship mapped out, that’s far from the the truth. Otherwise no one will be signing mutual recognition agreements.

Aesma wrote:

All these candidates admitting or being forced to admit that they took all kinds of drugs, from the uptight tory party, that is too funny.

Who cares, everybody has used drugs one time or another. But indeed too funny.

Well in the case of Gove he apparently took measures to ruin the lives of cocaine users, while being himself a user.

A101 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

So what happens then to a UK > US trade deal when you walk away?

Same thing that happens when the EU/US talks broke down, you continue trade on the status quo

UK does not have a deal with US after UK leaves EU with no deal leaving old existing UK-EU-US trade deals behind.
Status quo is no deal.

A101 wrote:

There will be no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade deal if Brexit puts at risk the 1998 peace accord between Ireland and Northern Ireland, U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday. “We must ensure that nothing happens in the Brexit discussions that imperils the Good Friday accord, including but not limited to the seamless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland,” Pelosi told the Irish parliament,

Catch 22 isn’t it, they want to block a trade deal if we leave on no deal, but we can’t have a trade deal either if we sign the WA, so at the end of the day there’s nothing to lose if we try.

UK has pretty good trade deals with US if UK signs the WA. No catch-22.
UK can have separate trade deal with US if UK walks away from EU and if Ireland is reunified. No catch-22
What you cannot have is a better UK-US deal than what UK-EU-US trade deal is. No catch-22.

A101 wrote:

Klaus was saying no one will trade with the UK unless we honour our commitments with the EU and have the future relationship mapped out, that’s far from the the truth.

If you don't honour your commitments it makes other countries less interested to the deal. Also if you don't know what you are doing it means other countries will need to proceed with caution. Both mean you will get a worse deal if you can get a deal at all. Some countries might think UK is not worth the headache.

UK doesn't know whether it is going to swing full socialistic with Corbyn or zero tariff trade heaven or high tariff protectionistic.
UK doesn't know whether agreements signed with UK during previous PM remain valid whenever new PM is elected.
Other countries do not know whether UK is rejoining EU after 3 years outside.
Other countries do not know whether UK will turn hard into US after 5 years of negotiating with US.

If you are some other midsize country would you like to place your bets on trade with UK or would you pursue some other countries with more stability better first?

I am not even sure there will be a UK at all after all the infighting and nondecisions.
Maybe there will be 4 pieces. A separate Ireland, Scotland and 2 pieces of what previously was England-Wales.

Ertro wrote:

A101 wrote:

Catch 22 isn’t it, they want to block a trade deal if we leave on no deal, but we can’t have a trade deal either if we sign the WA, so at the end of the day there’s nothing to lose if we try.

UK has pretty good trade deals with US if UK signs the WA. No catch-22.
UK can have separate trade deal with US if UK walks away from EU and if Ireland is reunified. No catch-22
What you cannot have is a better UK-US deal than what UK-EU-US trade deal is. No catch-22.

There is only a slight problem: if the UK signs the WA, there is no guarantee that other countries will recognize it, other countries like the US don't have to give the UK the same treatment as if they were in the EU. The EU wants this, so most probably it will happen anyway, but with people like Trump at the helm, who knows.

The UK shot itself in the foot and is more than at the moment dependent on other countries.

Ertro wrote:

I am not even sure there will be a UK at all after all the infighting and nondecisions.
Maybe there will be 4 pieces. A separate Ireland, Scotland and 2 pieces of what previously was England-Wales.

Keep dreaming. Not going to happen.

KLDC10 wrote:

Ertro wrote:

I am not even sure there will be a UK at all after all the infighting and nondecisions.
Maybe there will be 4 pieces. A separate Ireland, Scotland and 2 pieces of what previously was England-Wales.

Keep dreaming. Not going to happen.

If no deal, or a rubbish deal goes through and Boris or similar is PM for longer than a year then I can guarantee you, the voices to have another Scotland indi ref will become hard to ignore. If I was them I'd want out.

Wales can't leave. Not enough will, not enough of an economy to survive on it's own, too many who voted Brexit. Rather ironic considering the huge amount of money spent on Wales from the EU.

NI - Cannot see a rejoin in my lifetime. Too much was lost by both sides. At the same time there is a complete lack of any interest / respect for the Good Friday agreement from certain corners of the Brexit arguement.

KLDC10 wrote:

Ertro wrote:

I am not even sure there will be a UK at all after all the infighting and nondecisions.
Maybe there will be 4 pieces. A separate Ireland, Scotland and 2 pieces of what previously was England-Wales.

Keep dreaming. Not going to happen.

Based on what evidence do you conclude this?

BTW, it is nobody's pipedream that the UK is dissolving because of Brexit, it is a consequence.

Reinhardt wrote:

If no deal, or a rubbish deal goes through and Boris or similar is PM for longer than a year then I can guarantee you, the voices to have another Scotland indi ref will become hard to ignore. If I was them I'd want out.

Wales can't leave. Not enough will, not enough of an economy to survive on it's own, too many who voted Brexit. Rather ironic considering the huge amount of money spent on Wales from the EU.

NI - Cannot see a rejoin in my lifetime. Too much was lost by both sides. At the same time there is a complete lack of any interest / respect for the Good Friday agreement from certain corners of the Brexit arguement.

Scotland cannot guarantee accession to the EU in the event of independence. Spain would likely veto an application on Scotland's part over Catalan concerns. Plus, Scotland already had their referendum, in the knowledge that an EU Referendum was coming if the Tories won the next election. Ironically, Scotland is far more likely to get another referendum if there is a second Brexit referendum - in that scenario, it would be far harder to justify not allowing a second IndyRef than it is now.

The UK is a net contributor to the EU Budget. The money spent in Wales by the EU is merely our own money, sent back with strings attached. We can spend it far better ourselves, without the middle man.

Dutchy wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Ertro wrote:

I am not even sure there will be a UK at all after all the infighting and nondecisions.
Maybe there will be 4 pieces. A separate Ireland, Scotland and 2 pieces of what previously was England-Wales.

Keep dreaming. Not going to happen.

Based on what evidence do you conclude this?

BTW, it is nobody's pipedream that the UK is dissolving because of Brexit, it is a consequence.

For the reasons I outlined above. The UK is not dissolving.

KLDC10 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

If no deal, or a rubbish deal goes through and Boris or similar is PM for longer than a year then I can guarantee you, the voices to have another Scotland indi ref will become hard to ignore. If I was them I'd want out.

Wales can't leave. Not enough will, not enough of an economy to survive on it's own, too many who voted Brexit. Rather ironic considering the huge amount of money spent on Wales from the EU.

NI - Cannot see a rejoin in my lifetime. Too much was lost by both sides. At the same time there is a complete lack of any interest / respect for the Good Friday agreement from certain corners of the Brexit arguement.

Scotland cannot guarantee accession to the EU in the event of independence. Spain would likely veto an application on Scotland's part over Catalan concerns. Plus, Scotland already had their referendum, in the knowledge that an EU Referendum was coming if the Tories won the next election. Ironically, Scotland is far more likely to get another referendum if there is a second Brexit referendum - in that scenario, it would be far harder to justify not allowing a second IndyRef than it is now.

The UK is a net contributor to the EU Budget. The money spent in Wales by the EU is merely our own money, sent back with strings attached. We can spend it far better ourselves, without the middle man.

Dutchy wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Keep dreaming. Not going to happen.

Based on what evidence do you conclude this?

BTW, it is nobody's pipedream that the UK is dissolving because of Brexit, it is a consequence.

For the reasons I outlined above. The UK is not dissolving.

Your reasons given are thin, razor thin. Things have changed substantially since the last referendum.

KLDC10 wrote:

Scotland cannot guarantee accession to the EU in the event of independence. Spain would likely veto an application on Scotland's part over Catalan concerns. Plus, Scotland already had their referendum, in the knowledge that an EU Referendum was coming if the Tories won the next election. Ironically, Scotland is far more likely to get another referendum if there is a second Brexit referendum - in that scenario, it would be far harder to justify not allowing a second IndyRef than it is now.

Apparently Spain doesn't mind, as long as it happens after Brexit.

KLDC10 wrote:

The UK is a net contributor to the EU Budget. The money spent in Wales by the EU is merely our own money, sent back with strings attached. We can spend it far better ourselves, without the middle man.

Yeah, like Boris' idea to cut taxes for the rich.

Anyone believing any Tory saying they will spend more on public services/the people is delusional at this point.

KLDC10 wrote:

Scotland cannot guarantee accession to the EU in the event of independence.

After Brexit it would be as much as assured.

Spain would likely veto an application on Scotland's part over Catalan concerns.

Nope. Brexit would eliminate that concern and spanish politicians have already stated as much.

What's seen as problematic would be the precedent of a region separating from an EU member state, but once the UK has brexited it's fair game!

Plus, Scotland already had their referendum,

So did the UK, and the vote was "In". Didn't stop some to push for a second referendum in 2016, so 3 years on with all the promises having failed to materialize and with the status of information radically altered, there is no leg to stand on about not having a third vote, actually!

The UK is a net contributor to the EU Budget. The money spent in Wales by the EU is merely our own money, sent back with strings attached. We can spend it far better ourselves, without the middle man.

For some reason, however, the central Westminster government never got around to actually doing that instead of blowing the money on tax cuts for the wealthy and insane military expeditions, so the credibility of that claim is rather low.

For the reasons I outlined above. The UK is not dissolving.

English nationalists are obsessed with keeping their local colonies, but they seem curiously disinterested in actually providing good reasons for the people there to stay.

Aesma wrote:

Yeah, like Boris' idea to cut taxes for the rich.

Anyone believing any Tory saying they will spend more on public services/the people is delusional at this point.

People earning up to 80,000GBP per year are not "the rich" - and certainly not if they live in London.

Klaus wrote:

So did the UK, and the vote was "In". Didn't stop some to push for a second referendum in 2016, so 3 years on with all the promises having failed to materialize and with the status of information radically altered, there is no leg to stand on about not having a third vote, actually!

The electorate gave their consent to remain in the Common Market. There was no democratic consent given by the British electorate to either the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties, which radically changed the structure of the European Union and the role and rights of individual member states therein

Klaus wrote:

For some reason, however, the central Westminster government never got around to actually doing that instead of blowing the money on tax cuts for the wealthy and insane military expeditions, so the credibility of that claim is rather low.

I said that we can do it better ourselves, not that we would throw money around like candy. Spending must be prioritised.

Klaus wrote:

English nationalists are obsessed with keeping their local colonies, but they seem curiously disinterested in actually providing good reasons for the people there to stay.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not colonies. Representatives from each of the four nations which make up the United Kingdom have seats in the Westminster Parliament. They are not denied representation and, ergo, are not colonies. I'm afraid that statements like this make it appear as though you have some form of deep-rooted animosity towards the British, rather than coming across in a manner at all intellectual.

I've seen they're in the 14% top of income.

All people there would benefit.

Noone below would benefit.

Ertro wrote:

UK does not have a deal with US after UK leaves EU with no deal leaving old existing UK-EU-US trade deals behind.
Status quo is no deal.

The Status Quo is the Mutual Recognition Agreements signed with the US

Ertro wrote:

UK has pretty good trade deals with US if UK signs the WA. No catch-22.

We will not be signing the WA

Ertro wrote:

UK can have separate trade deal with US if UK walks away from EU and if Ireland is reunified. No catch-22

Do you think Ireland will be reunified by the 31st October?

And so far even though the majority voted to remain in the EU, I haven’t seen a big push to hold a border poll as part of the GFA

Ertro wrote:

What you cannot have is a better UK-US deal than what UK-EU-US trade deal is. No catch-22.

Yes we can as the EU dose not have a free trade agreement with the US, talk broke down

Ertro wrote:

If you don't honour your commitments it makes other countries less interested to the deal. Also if you don't know what you are doing it means other countries will need to proceed with caution. Both mean you will get a worse deal if you can get a deal at all. Some countries might think UK is not worth the headache.

Commit to what? Their is no ratified agreement as long as we continue to make payments up untill we leave we are not in breach, but to be honest I have no objection with the divorce bill, what I object to is the BRINO within the WA

Ertro wrote:

UK doesn't know whether it is going to swing full socialistic with Corbyn or zero tariff trade heaven or high tariff protectionistic.
UK doesn't know whether agreements signed with UK during previous PM remain valid whenever new PM is elected.
Other countries do not know whether UK is rejoining EU after 3 years outside.
Other countries do not know whether UK will turn hard into US after 5 years of negotiating with US.

Strawmans argument, nothing in what you have said is any different when a GE is coming up, when nations sit down to talk no one has a crystal ball on what the future brings, everyone said Trump had no hope and guess what, nations can only plan on what’s in front of them, the US could also turn full circle at the next election or not Trump has a used by date.

Ertro wrote:

If you are some other midsize country would you like to place your bets on trade with UK or would you pursue some other countries with more stability better first?

Nations don’t trade in isolation, negotiations take as long as they have too, we are not just talking to nations on a list when the 1st one is complete then move on to the next, a lot of these negotiations are run concurrently

Ertro wrote:

I am not even sure there will be a UK at all after all the infighting and nondecisions.
Maybe there will be 4 pieces. A separate Ireland, Scotland and 2 pieces of what previously was England-Wales.

The only one with a succession clause is NI and even then there are limits to it, Scotland is all way going to talk succession but it’s up to the UK parliament to decide that next and there is no rush at the moment.