https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 77791.html

Mr barnier talks about that both UK need to respect that both side need to respect each other independence and respect that both has red lines.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And still, you can't really name five things which should be different in the UK, now you are out. Very good to have autonomy, but the Brits are less free, they can't just pack their things and move anywhere in the EU or many other advantages the EU offers.

It is such a nice argument on the service, think for one minute about what it really entitles and it all falls apart.

In exchange the UK gets full control over who is allowed to move to the UK. It will soon be free of following crazy EU regulations (like shapes of cucumbers or colours of passports), The UK will be free to protect its national interests and identity. Social and environmental standards will be adjusted to make the country highly competitive and the EU will no longer enforce their overblown regulations on the UK. Imho trade deals will come, once the UK has stopped talking to the EU and decided to have no deal with them. Who would want to sign a deal with a vassal of the EU, so other countries will wait to see if the UK is really willing to free itself from EU control or not.

Now I am. sure you are just. trolling here, well done to go over the top to make sure we can all see it.

Is the whole Brexit not some form of trolling?

seahawk wrote:

Is the whole Brexit not some form of trolling?

Well, Michel Barnier was definitely trolling BoJo at his press conference this afternoon, by rightfully pointing out that while the UK refuses to commit to never lower its current (EU) standards, it has exactly this provision as an absolute red line in its negotiating mandate for the US trade negotiations????

sabenapilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Is the whole Brexit not some form of trolling?

Well, Michel Barnier was definitely trolling BoJo at his press conference this afternoon, by rightfully pointing out that while the UK refuses to commit to never lower its current (EU) standards, it has exactly this provision as an absolute red line in its negotiating mandate for the US trade negotiations????

The point is that the UK is setting the red line, versus being told what the red line is.......
Seems simple to me.......

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Is the whole Brexit not some form of trolling?

Well, Michel Barnier was definitely trolling BoJo at his press conference this afternoon, by rightfully pointing out that while the UK refuses to commit to never lower its current (EU) standards, it has exactly this provision as an absolute red line in its negotiating mandate for the US trade negotiations????

The point is that the UK is setting the red line, versus being told what the red line is.......
Seems simple to me.......

Yeah it very simple isn’t it. The EU dosn’t recognise UK sovereignty.......it expects the UK to be the only one to compromise and the EU not does not have to, dosn’t work like that.


The RU dosn’t play well with others

A101 wrote:

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, Michel Barnier was definitely trolling BoJo at his press conference this afternoon, by rightfully pointing out that while the UK refuses to commit to never lower its current (EU) standards, it has exactly this provision as an absolute red line in its negotiating mandate for the US trade negotiations????

The point is that the UK is setting the red line, versus being told what the red line is.......
Seems simple to me.......

Yeah it very simple isn’t it. The EU dosn’t recognise UK sovereignty.......it expects the UK to be the only one to compromise and the EU not does not have to, dosn’t work like that.


The RU dosn’t play well with others

The EU has put a good number of options on the table, with increasing levels of compromise and market access. With extra goodwill in the case of Northern Ireland.

Just by sitting on the table the EU is recognising UK sovereignty, it just turns out the UK wants concesions, and for that there needs to be a quid pro quo.

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

In exchange the UK gets full control over who is allowed to move to the UK. It will soon be free of following crazy EU regulations (like shapes of cucumbers or colours of passports), The UK will be free to protect its national interests and identity. Social and environmental standards will be adjusted to make the country highly competitive and the EU will no longer enforce their overblown regulations on the UK. Imho trade deals will come, once the UK has stopped talking to the EU and decided to have no deal with them. Who would want to sign a deal with a vassal of the EU, so other countries will wait to see if the UK is really willing to free itself from EU control or not.

Now I am. sure you are just. trolling here, well done to go over the top to make sure we can all see it.

Is the whole Brexit not some form of trolling?

Yes. But a sinister twist it is real.

JJJ wrote:

The EU has put a good number of options on the table, with increasing levels of compromise and market access. With extra goodwill in the case of Northern Ireland.

Just by sitting on the table the EU is recognising UK sovereignty, it just turns out the UK wants concesions, and for that there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Are any of those options taking the EU red lines off the tables or are just expecting the UK to move from its red lines.

Keeping various amount of options on the table without moving from the red lines is not compromising no matter how you want to portray it

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The EU has put a good number of options on the table, with increasing levels of compromise and market access. With extra goodwill in the case of Northern Ireland.

Just by sitting on the table the EU is recognising UK sovereignty, it just turns out the UK wants concesions, and for that there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Are any of those options taking the EU red lines off the tables or are just expecting the UK to move from its red lines.

Keeping various amount of options on the table without moving from the red lines is not compromising no matter how you want to portray it

The EU doesn't compromise on its principles and it will not let the UK cherry pick as they wish. The UK is the junior partner in this, it is not between equals.

Tell us which US red lines are off the table for the uk trade deal? None!
So why pretend the EU should comply to the UK? As a reward to a country that openly promote the destruction of the EU?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The EU has put a good number of options on the table, with increasing levels of compromise and market access. With extra goodwill in the case of Northern Ireland.

Just by sitting on the table the EU is recognising UK sovereignty, it just turns out the UK wants concesions, and for that there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Are any of those options taking the EU red lines off the tables or are just expecting the UK to move from its red lines.

Keeping various amount of options on the table without moving from the red lines is not compromising no matter how you want to portray it

The EU doesn't compromise on its principles and it will not let the UK cherry pick as they wish. The UK is the junior partner in this, it is not between equals.

The Johnson government is not cherry picking, it’s actually the other way around, you want the EU to trample on UK sovereignty,


And yes we are equals, are you saying you do not agree with Article 6 of the TEU or the ECHR. You are not asking Australia to join the ECHR to get a trade deal which operates under AHRC and help put together the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN.

Being sovereign means the UK can decide if it wants to remain under the ECHR or form it’s own independent bodies. That’s what the EU is trying to stop

Olddog wrote:

Tell us which US red lines are off the table for the uk trade deal? None!

So why pretend the EU should comply to the UK? As a reward to a country that openly promote the destruction of the EU?

Difference here is the US is not demanding we sign up to follow US law as constituted by Congress, were as the EU red lines are trying to trample on UK sovereignty by regulatory alignment and having a role for the ECJ fundamental difference in negotiations.

Even the US-AU FTA doesn’t require that Australia fall into regulatory alignment

A101 wrote:

The Johnson government is not cherry picking, it’s actually the other way around, you want the EU to trample on UK sovereignty,


And yes we are equals, are you saying you do not agree with Article 6 of the TEU or the ECHR. You are not asking Australia to join the ECHR to get a trade deal which operates under AHRC and help put together the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN.

Being sovereign means the UK can decide if it wants to remain under the ECHR or form it’s own independent bodies. That’s what the EU is trying to stop

That strikes me as a rather deliberate mischaracterization of the situation. The WA and PD set out a vision for a comprehensive post-Brexit deal covering more than just trade. This includes data transfers etc, which are covered by the non-EU EHRC. The UK is refusing to agree to that - and other things - which leaves one wondering if it’s stated aspiration for a comprehensive deal was based on domestic political expediency, rather than negotiating in good faith. This is not lost on anyone in the world.

It’s now seeking sector-by-sector deals, which is the very definition of cherry picking. Australia never signed any type of legally binding or non-binding document, nor do we know if it is seeking the same kind of data transfer as the UK. It’s not a relevant comparison.

The bigger point is, of course, geography. The EU is not going to allow a pre-USMCA Mexico scenario on its border. It has stringent rules for all non-members on its borders. Ask Turkey, Switzerland and Norway. This victim/persecution Brexiteer complex is really quite tiresome. At its core, it’s plain dishonest.

You may not like the geography argument, but it’s fundamental reality has been set out by Brexiteer Truss and Johnson. 1.8 GBP benefit = 60GBP/worker if we assume that the UK workforce accounts for 50% of its population. It’s so low even I thought it was a joke. But that’s what geography does. Canada and the US trade more than that in under 2 days. That’s why the EU is so entrenched on LPF. It knows how trade will flow. It’s a reality, not a theory.

Ultimately we’re heading for a blowout. The EU are already briefing that there will be a blow out in June. So much so, that when it comes; the whole world will see it as pre-planned UK theatrics. Not a good look when everybody’s already questioning if you were negotiating in good faith in the past.

At this point sector by sector trade deals may be a necessity. They will not be 'cherry picking'. Just the best deal that the UK//EU can negotiate, and they likely will be short term.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

At this point sector by sector trade deals may be a necessity. They will not be 'cherry picking'. Just the best deal that the UK//EU can negotiate, and they likely will be short term.

That is true. At this point, it’s a question about who gets to decide which cherries get picked. My money is on the party that doesn’t want cherry picking determining which cherries it allows to get picked. I actually think it’ll be a lot less than most folk would consider economically rational. Which is about right - Brexit was always an ideological, not economically rational, endeavour.

Sector by sector with one break all model is the swiss model.


Swiss constantly tries to break one agreement and get as answer that then the rest of the agreements are broken. I imagine that UK will not want such a rule even if EU want to move away from that modell wit the swiss.

Also as mr Barnier mentioned, to get this ratified into EU will not work. Many countries will disagree with one or two agreements making the whole awerall agreement fall with the very short time framework requested.

UK demands an agreement in practise before the summer but dont want to help EU speed up their side.

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Tell us which US red lines are off the table for the uk trade deal? None!

So why pretend the EU should comply to the UK? As a reward to a country that openly promote the destruction of the EU?

Difference here is the US is not demanding we sign up to follow US law as constituted by Congress, were as the EU red lines are trying to trample on UK sovereignty by regulatory alignment and having a role for the ECJ fundamental difference in negotiations.

Even the US-AU FTA doesn’t require that Australia fall into regulatory alignment

You are totally free not follow EU rules. We are also free to restrict trade level to the WTO rules. Your problem, whatever the way you try to portray it, is you want more with zero string. All the posing as a victim will not fly.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The EU has put a good number of options on the table, with increasing levels of compromise and market access. With extra goodwill in the case of Northern Ireland.

Just by sitting on the table the EU is recognising UK sovereignty, it just turns out the UK wants concesions, and for that there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Are any of those options taking the EU red lines off the tables or are just expecting the UK to move from its red lines.

Keeping various amount of options on the table without moving from the red lines is not compromising no matter how you want to portray it

In the timeframe the UK wants a deal yes it is. The UK cannot expect to get a better deal than Norway, Canada, Japan or South Korea which took far more than a few months to negotiate.

Northern Ireland is quite the accomodation package already. The EU has accomodated on the UK desired timeframe and is ready to move faster than with anyone else.

But ultimately the UK is one player in a big world and whatever is considered by other third parties as a major concession will be demanded by others so it needs to be a strict quid pro quo.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The EU has put a good number of options on the table, with increasing levels of compromise and market access. With extra goodwill in the case of Northern Ireland.

Just by sitting on the table the EU is recognising UK sovereignty, it just turns out the UK wants concesions, and for that there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Are any of those options taking the EU red lines off the tables or are just expecting the UK to move from its red lines.

Keeping various amount of options on the table without moving from the red lines is not compromising no matter how you want to portray it

In the timeframe the UK wants a deal yes it is. The UK cannot expect to get a better deal than Norway, Canada, Japan or South Korea which took far more than a few months to negotiate.

Northern Ireland is quite the accomodation package already. The EU has accomodated on the UK desired timeframe and is ready to move faster than with anyone else.

But ultimately the UK is one player in a big world and whatever is considered by other third parties as a major concession will be demanded by others so it needs to be a strict quid pro quo.

The current Government is on record to be asking for CETA type agreement the template is there to do it in a shorter period Johnson is not asking for a better deal than Canada in trade.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Are any of those options taking the EU red lines off the tables or are just expecting the UK to move from its red lines.

Keeping various amount of options on the table without moving from the red lines is not compromising no matter how you want to portray it

In the timeframe the UK wants a deal yes it is. The UK cannot expect to get a better deal than Norway, Canada, Japan or South Korea which took far more than a few months to negotiate.

Northern Ireland is quite the accomodation package already. The EU has accomodated on the UK desired timeframe and is ready to move faster than with anyone else.

But ultimately the UK is one player in a big world and whatever is considered by other third parties as a major concession will be demanded by others so it needs to be a strict quid pro quo.

The current Government is on record to be asking for CETA type agreement the template is there to do it in a shorter period Johnson is not asking for a better deal than Canada in trade.

Even if the template is there, there are a lot of things that need to be sorted out. Trade negotiations normally move towards more alignment, not less. It cannot be done right within a year, so Johnson is just moving towards a hard Brexit and wants to blame the EU for it.

A101 wrote:

The current Government is on record to be asking for CETA type agreemen:t the template is there to do it in a shorter period Johnson is not asking for a better deal than Canada in trade.

It's not because the UK asks for that deal, that the EU has to give it.

After long and complex negotiations between the EU and Canada, it was decided by both sides that in their mutual interest a comprehensive package full of of giving and taking could be agreed between them: this comprehensive compromise got to be known as CETA.

Clearly the British government now thinks that of all the FTAs the EU has, the one with Canada suits them best, but why should the EU just give them that?
Johnson may not be asking for a better deal than Canada, but the EU may feel that such a deal is too good for the UK for what it only gets in return from the UK.
Indeed, the giving and taking is completely different, so the deal between the UK and the EU will have to be different too if there's to be a deal.

What if the EU offered for instance the Korea type of deal iso the Canada type of deal to the UK? It was also a flag on the slide BoJo likes to refer to?
It's different to the Canada FTA... so why the Canada over the Korea one?
And why should the EU give the UK what it wants?

Besides, what happened to the many plusses from the Canada+++ option that this government said it would persue?

As to sector-by-sector agreements -
Is the UK willing to accept a guillotine clause like the Swiss have to hold them at a leash? Or is that allegedly stepping on the British sovereignty too?
There's an eyepopping immaturity in the British thinking when it comes to negotiating trade deals, which is perfectly normal for a country which has never conducted a trade negotiation ever: the idea that it can somehow pre-determine what the other party must offer them, if only they are modest in their demand and model their offer to what others got in return.

As to the need to fully allign with either of the world's bigger player's standards, rather than set very own British standards -
The former BoE Governor Mr King has written an interesing article on Bloomberg today, in which he strongly argues that it would make the most economic sense for the UK to fuly allign its rulebook with that of the US, given its imminent break with the EU...
However, although such would make economic sense indeed, it would mean the UK would effectively become an American vassal state then, forgoing on the ability to set its own sovereign rules in practice.

Due to it's relatively small economic clout on the world's scene, its getting crystal clear that the UK will have to chose between isolation in absolute and complete sovereignty as it is currently being definited by this government, or continue being a global and free trading Britain, abiding by a rulebook now set by others: both are simply not compatible.
As an EU memberstate, there was this unique option to be able to combine both, albeit via a mechanism of shared sovereignty over the rulebook of the European trade juggernaut;
As a stand-alone nation, it will just be about weighing off who's vassal you become really... probably after troddling on for a couple of years first, chasing illusions from the past.

I do wonder when the anti Brexit whining and sulking will stop?

A few months, a few years, decades?

Anyone want to answer?

What anti-brexit ? As a french I am all for it!

noviorbis77 wrote:

I do wonder when the anti Brexit whining and sulking will stop?

A few months, a few years, decades?

Anyone want to answer?

Brexit is over.

Now we talk about FTA negotiations UK EU.

UK still in the situation where the advantage of EU minus infuance is still valid like a Norway ++ model.

Now we talk about red lines of UK vs EU that is the basis of FTA negotiations that hopefully will replace this Norway ++ in 2021.

EU and UK has presented its red lines. These red lines will be complicated to find a common position from before end of june that is a red line to extend the Norway ++ model and even until october that is the practical deadline in order to avoid WTO terms.

Both sides knows this. I strongly believe that WTO iscoming. A wto that do not have any power for non USA countries while USA do not attend any more.

June will be to early for uk to extend norway ++ and december will be to late for EU.

I believe that new years eve 2021 we will see French fishermen block french ports and UK import export grind to a halt without anyone can do anything about it while they will lose access to UK waters.

I think France will ensure that UK financial industry services to Europe stops within 24 month in 2023.

UK EU relations will take a generation to recover.

noviorbis77 wrote:

I do wonder when the anti Brexit whining and sulking will stop?

A few months, a few years, decades?

Anyone want to answer?

Criticism will probably cease:
1. when Brexit stops being an utter and total trainwreck
2. when Brexit proponents stop pushing absurd, ridiculous nonsense about it
3. when the UK government stops lying and trolling about it and puts on its big boy pants

So don't hold your breath (although that might actually help point 2. at least).

A101 wrote:

The current Government is on record to be asking for CETA type agreement the template is there to do it in a shorter period Johnson is not asking for a better deal than Canada in trade.

Of course he is, because the UK right on the EU's doorstep and thus without builtin transportation cost impediments would enjoy a substantial advantage relative to Canada.

That is a perfectly obvious difference.

Plus, Canada has shown a lot more good faith and it also commits to reducing trade barriers while the UK openly declares that it plans to work for the exact opposite.

So all aspects of a trade deal which are related to matters of good faith and of convergence or divergence are also different automatically.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

At this point sector by sector trade deals may be a necessity. They will not be 'cherry picking'. Just the best deal that the UK//EU can negotiate, and they likely will be short term.

No. The EU will not agree to that, because that is exactly the cherrypicking to the UK's unilateral advantage BoJo and his government would love to achieve.

There are only these two options:

1. An actual bilateral deal which will be a package combining all major aspects of the relationship.

2. No deal and the EU and the UK each unilaterally deciding on specific measures on their side as they see fit.

Of course 2. will be devastating for the UK economy.

noviorbis77 wrote:

I do wonder when the anti Brexit whining and sulking will stop?

A few months, a few years, decades?

Anyone want to answer?

Ooh ooh - I can! I can!

Not for many, many decades. Welcome to US-style culture wars and political polarization. Except that the US version is milder; there is some degree of community alignment where Brexit has managed to divide families and communities.

Many (most?) Scots aren’t going to stop whining and sulking about it. Approximately half of NI isn’t going to stop whining and sulking about it. And if the economy doesn’t fire on all cylinders, the urban dwellers /professionals/highly educated aren’t going to stop whining and sulking about it.

The problem with 52% stuffing it’s decision down the throat of 48% on a remarkably polarizing issue, is that most (if not all) of that 48% is not going to hesitate to make the 52% wear it if things go sideways.

I would not want to be a retired person of even modest means in the UK for at least the next decade. If this Tory Brexit project doesn’t go to plan - more funding for hospitals, education etc (where’s the money going to come from?), nobody can predict what kind of Labour havoc the other half of the country will inflict. It’s all in the balance.

I disagree with A101 a lot, but I would’ve done exactly what he’s done: get the eff out of dodge. Stay out for 10-15 years while the supertanker changes course. Then reassess.

noviorbis77 wrote:

I do wonder when the anti Brexit whining and sulking will stop?

A few months, a few years, decades?

Anyone want to answer?

What whining? Pointing out the obvious and just discussing what steps the Johnson government is taking and how the EU obviously going to react to it, isn't whining. Perhaps you perceive it as whining, because you feel uneasy with the reality of your chosen path?

ElPistolero wrote:

The problem with 52% stuffing its decision down the throat of 48% on a remarkably polarizing issue, is that most (if not all) of that 48% is not going to hesitate to make these 52% wear it if things go sideways.

When a country embarks on a massive constitutional reform, which Brexit in essence is, it is normally not done by single binary popular mandate: it is done via some sort of a concensus seeking mechanism to make sure the end result is backed by more than just 50% +1 vote of those who happen to show up on any single date for a consutative referendum in which the question was only asked about whether the status quo was acceptable, but never was it asked what they wanted instead.

Although the referendum was questionable, both in its content (i.e. the lack of a clear alternative option) as well as its form (notably the electoral basis), it now forms an undisputed political fact which must be respected and so a status quo is no option.
However, by the same logic of giving the people their say on the status quo -and by accepting their verdict- there has been no mandate whatsover for the alternative now implemented by the new Tory government as this government does not hold a popular majority in the UK, even less so since none of the other parties participating in the most recent election had proposals of their own even remotely identical to those now persued by the Tories.

The "whining" thus isn't going to go away soon, if ever, because it is in fact an expression of the broad views of the majority of Brits, which due to the electoral system of the UK are not correctly represented in Westminster and are vehemently denied their democratic right to have their say in a consultative referendum to approve the plans drawn up by this government.

You can expect that the moment the Tories are out of power, the whole issue of Britain's relationship with the EU will re-emerge, which is also why the EU is not going to invest a whole lot of political effort and painful compromise into reaching some sort of a shaky deal: it knows that whatever is agreed now, will be revised in a couple of years anyway...

In fact, the baseline model EU ambassadors now go by, is for a breakdown of the current negotiations somewhere around summer, followed by the period of trading under WTO rules for a couple of years, followed by another round of talks -this time far more serious- and let by a different government.

A101 wrote:

Difference here is the US is not demanding we sign up to follow US law as constituted by Congress,

The USA doesn't even have a Single Market – their state-differentiated markets are much more fragmented than the EU's Single Market, which is why federally agreed access to the US market is much less valuable in many respects because the regulation impediments are often on the US state level, much as in Europe in the bad old days before the EU Single Market which the UK had championed but which it has now thrown away, ironically.

But still the US negotiators have already declared that the UK will need to lower its own standards to the mostly pretty basic US levels and the UK will have to remove protections (such as for the NHS and its special purchasing rules) so US corporations can force the same access (and the same prices!) as they would have across the US as a precondition of a trade deal.

Which is why the EU has refused those conditions and has not agreed to a deal with the US.

BoJo and Nigel have of course misrepresented that as proof of ridiculous ineptitude of the EU, but in reality a US trade deal would be enormously costly in terms of fundamental compromises which the EU is just not willing to make and which would cost major disruption to the UK as well, without any noticeable benefits in return.

it isn't difficult to get a US trade deal – it's just very costly with only small to moderate benefits to show for all the downsides. But the EU actually has quite a number of relevant sectoral deals with the US, which the UK is now of cours losing all as well.

And no, the UK isn't important enough to bother with those kinds of sectoral deals while Switzerland is simultaneously pushed from that kind of thing towards a unified deal as well.

were as the EU red lines are trying to trample on UK sovereignty by regulatory alignment and having a role for the ECJ fundamental difference in negotiations.

If you want access to the european Single Market you simply have to abide by the same rules as all the other participants, which is the only way the Single Market can even function in the first place.

And If you don't want access at the same conditions as everybody else, well, then you just can't have it.

Your choice.

Even the US-AU FTA doesn’t require that Australia fall into regulatory alignment

The same interests and pressure points exist there, too.

A101 wrote:

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, Michel Barnier was definitely trolling BoJo at his press conference this afternoon, by rightfully pointing out that while the UK refuses to commit to never lower its current (EU) standards, it has exactly this provision as an absolute red line in its negotiating mandate for the US trade negotiations????

The point is that the UK is setting the red line, versus being told what the red line is.......
Seems simple to me.......

Yeah it very simple isn’t it. The EU dosn’t recognise UK sovereignty.......it expects the UK to be the only one to compromise and the EU not does not have to, dosn’t work like that.


The RU dosn’t play well with others

You get this totally wrong. Both sides can respect each others sovereignty and refuse to compromise. Considering the red lines presented this is what seems to happen right now.

Normally interests, what each side might loose by not compromising makes the sides to adjust the red lines,but that has nothing to do with sovereignty only how strong the position each side has in the negotiating table.

Right now if we following the signals from USA,Canada,EU etc we canall try to evaluate how strong negotiating position UK have when enterin FTA negotiationswith each of them. Imagine thenthat FTA with EU fails will for example UK position in front of USA be stronger or weaker?

I wonder if it is time to open a separate thread on the shape of the sector by sector agreements. Even the word 'sector' may be too broad.

Here are some of the items I see:

Aviation, at least the part connected to Airbus. Wales wants to keep producing wings, now and in the future. EU absolutely needs those wings and RR engines. Some sort of 2-5 year agreement needs to be negotiated

Food and medicine supplies need to be ensured, perhaps broken down to some month by month, some year by year.

There are likely lots of essential industrial and public goods supplies needed to avoid emergency shutdowns. A czar with committee will be needed on both sides to enable quick trade in these items.

To enable the two prior items a special 'free port' or two needs to be physically present on both sides. Military are often drafted to do this sort of thing, get the exported/imported goods to a 'safe place' on both sides, close to transit facilities, and civilians process getting it exports into the 'free port', and good out and to the countryside. Military in charge of getting essential goods from one side to the other.

Financial services trade may need winding down, that will also require negotiations and a czar @c.

NATO may be able to provide some coverage on security items that were previously handled by the EU.

This is time to be looking at the 'nuts and bolts' to hold things together in the event of no deal.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I wonder if it is time to open a separate thread on the shape of the sector by sector agreements. Even the word 'sector' may be too broad.

Here are some of the items I see:

Aviation, at least the part connected to Airbus. Wales wants to keep producing wings, now and in the future. EU absolutely needs those wings and RR engines. Some sort of 2-5 year agreement needs to be negotiated

Food and medicine supplies need to be ensured, perhaps broken down to some month by month, some year by year.

There are likely lots of essential industrial and public goods supplies needed to avoid emergency shutdowns. A czar with committee will be needed on both sides to enable quick trade in these items.

To enable the two prior items a special 'free port' or two needs to be physically present on both sides. Military are often drafted to do this sort of thing, get the exported/imported goods to a 'safe place' on both sides, close to transit facilities, and civilians process getting it exports into the 'free port', and good out and to the countryside. Military in charge of getting essential goods from one side to the other.

Financial services trade may need winding down, that will also require negotiations and a czar @c.

NATO may be able to provide some coverage on security items that were previously handled by the EU.

This is time to be looking at the 'nuts and bolts' to hold things together in the event of no deal.

The time frame of 3-4 month is too short.

WTO it will be.

olle wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I wonder if it is time to open a separate thread on the shape of the sector by sector agreements. Even the word 'sector' may be too broad.

Here are some of the items I see:

Aviation, at least the part connected to Airbus. Wales wants to keep producing wings, now and in the future. EU absolutely needs those wings and RR engines. Some sort of 2-5 year agreement needs to be negotiated

Food and medicine supplies need to be ensured, perhaps broken down to some month by month, some year by year.

There are likely lots of essential industrial and public goods supplies needed to avoid emergency shutdowns. A czar with committee will be needed on both sides to enable quick trade in these items.

To enable the two prior items a special 'free port' or two needs to be physically present on both sides. Military are often drafted to do this sort of thing, get the exported/imported goods to a 'safe place' on both sides, close to transit facilities, and civilians process getting it exports into the 'free port', and good out and to the countryside. Military in charge of getting essential goods from one side to the other.

Financial services trade may need winding down, that will also require negotiations and a czar @c.

NATO may be able to provide some coverage on security items that were previously handled by the EU.

This is time to be looking at the 'nuts and bolts' to hold things together in the event of no deal.

The time frame of 3-4 month is too short.

WTO it will be.

WTO and some sort of arrangement for some products essential for the European industry before they can move it out of Britain. It will be very one-sided of course, but Britain will be against the wall so they have to accept anything thrown at them. Anyhow, taking back control as we will see.......

IIRC even WTO is going to require a fair amount of bureaucratic agility and logistics planning. WTO will not cover everything that needs arranging, it is not fast enough for some essential supplies. Also WTO is not fully staffed at its top level. It is useful, but not a full solution.

The United Kingdom has hardly left the European Union, yet the costs have already run high. According to the British National Audit Office (NAO), the Brexit has already cost 5 billion euros.

The British Court of Audit calculated that this involved 1.9 billion euros in personnel costs, 1.5 billion for the installation of new systems and 288 million in hiring consultants. In October last year, no fewer than 22,000 people were involved in arranging the Brexit.

What exactly they were doing was completely unclear, but the NAO's estimate would still be on the cautious side.

Link in Dutch

So the first 5bn gone since the UK has left the EU. Any news on the 350million a week for the NHS?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

IIRC even WTO is going to require a fair amount of bureaucratic agility and logistics planning. WTO will not cover everything that needs arranging, it is not fast enough for some essential supplies. Also WTO is not fully staffed at its top level. It is useful, but not a full solution.

If the UK has no deal with the EU the WTO is not really involved – The WTO is mostly a basic rule agreement with a dispute settlement mechanism (which the Trump administration is currently sabotaging, so that part is mostly non-functional at this time).

Having no deal just means there will have to be substantial to extreme tariffs in both directions with only the UK tariffs having an option of being summarily lowered for imports from all other countries, not just selectively from the EU.

This of course could cause major disruptions of UK domestic industries including food production, so it isn't really a practical option for the UK government for the most part.

The EU, on the other hand, won't lower its general tariffs just for Brexit UK, so UK exports to the EU will remain substantially disadvantaged in that case.

All in all the no deal scenario the UK government seems to be pushing for right now would be a severe blow to the UK economy (but it might reap substantial profits for the smaller group of BoJo-supporting UK and foreign oligarchs).

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I wonder if it is time to open a separate thread on the shape of the sector by sector agreements. Even the word 'sector' may be too broad.

No, because there won't be such sectoral deals with the UK. That kind of relationship exists with Switzerland and the EU is pushing hard to get rid of it because it has turned out to be highly problematic und highly undesirable for the EU, so it is a certainty that the EU will not accept it for the UK either.

If the UK fails to reach a deal with the EU, the EU will take some unilateral measures for its own benefit to buffer at least some of the damage it deems relevant and in its own interest and the UK government will likely do the same on its side, but those minor mitigations won't be "deals" but just minor emergency mitigations on each side which can and will be withdrawn without consultation whenever the respective side sees fit.

There will either be one comprehensive deal which covers multiple sectors (which will undoubtedly be debated, but in total context) or none at all.

sabenapilot wrote:

When a country embarks on a massive constitutional reform, which Brexit in essence is, it is normally not done by single binary popular mandate: it is done via some sort of a concensus seeking mechanism to make sure the end result is backed by more than just 50% +1 vote of those who happen to show up on any single date for a consutative referendum in which the question was only asked about whether the status quo was acceptable, but never was it asked what they wanted instead.

Ok, if we put the reality up against what you have written.
1. The 48% who lost the referendum vote along with the 52% who won ensured that both parties stated that they would respect the result of the 2016 vote in the next general election in 2017.

2. In the second general election after the 2016 referendum, the same mandate to respect the 2016 result was re-inforced.

In the UK based on 1 referendum it appears as if the majority of the country accepts the result of the 2016 vote, regardless of how close it was, other countries may be different but this seems to be the way the UK went.

A party will have to campaign on reversing Brexit and re-joining the EU for this to be overturned, at this point in time, that will only be a valid strategy after 2021 if the UK does leave the structure of the EU, then the vote would be on the experience of being out.

None of that removes the stain of the completely missing mandate for the hard and probably even crash-out Brexit the current UK government is pursuing now.

It is for very good reason that it is generally accepted practice internationally to require at least a 66% if not 75% majority for fundamental changes because only that way this change will have a plausible mandate for the entirety of the population.

Brexit, on the other hand, had the weakest possible mandate that's even imaginable and then the actual implementation was even radically changed from what people had voted on.

Democratically Brexit is a complete train wreck, and the feverish lip service being paid to "democracy" in the abstract can't hide that in reality it's a travesty of misrepresentation and lacking legitimacy.

Kluas wrote:

None of that removes the stain of the completely missing mandate for the hard and probably even crash-out Brexit the current UK government is pursuing now.

The government since Cameron become PM ran on a manifesto of a in/out EU referenda with the result being respected which was done by both Government/Parliament, Cameron himself stated that we will be out of the CU/SM and as per the TEU the future relationship with the EU has to be negotiated.

Cameron had a dummy spit, May couldn’t get her WA passed Johnson reached a compromise agreement went to an election to break the deadlock in parliament, everyone knew Johnson’s policy on the future relationship if he cannot get an acceptable FTA. Yet he was elected in a democratic election and increased his margin within parliament.

Kluas wrote:

It is for very good reason that it is generally accepted practice internationally to require at least a 66% if not 75% majority for fundamental changes because only that way this change will have a plausible mandate for the entirety of the population.

You might not like the process that is used in the UK, but the UK followed what was required under TEU A50 (1) no point following some other nations constitutional requirements unless Parliament legislated that process, either the government or Parliament could have made those provisions if they wanted MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the bill.

Although the result are non binding on the government it was well established by Cameron that the result would be honoured by the government, Parliament could have put an amendment. Least this time there was a referenda before the Government implemented a major decision affecting the nation unlike the UK’s accession to the EU

Kluas wrote:

Brexit, on the other hand, had the weakest possible mandate that's even imaginable and then the actual implementation was even radically changed from what people had voted on.

Democratically Brexit is a complete train wreck, and the feverish lip service being paid to "democracy" in the abstract can't hide that in reality it's a travesty of misrepresentation and lacking legitimacy.

That’s is irrelevant as the result was enacted upon by the prevailing legislation to do other wise would have seen a loss of confidence in the UK electorate and it’s system of democracy.

The Government has acted on results as posed by the question within the referenda and the TEU under A50:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

“Remain a member of the European Union”
“Leave the European Union”


The dog and pony show after the referenda results is all on Government/Parliament not the electorate.

The only fault Johnsons made was signing the WA, he should have gone for the real Brexit directly.

seahawk wrote:

The only fault Johnsons made was signing the WA, he should have gone for the real Brexit directly.

100% agree........the only thing the WA should have addressed was the divorce payments. NI should have been part of the future relationship

A101 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The only fault Johnsons made was signing the WA, he should have gone for the real Brexit directly.

100% agree........the only thing the WA should have addressed was the divorce payments. NI should have been part of the future relationship

Seahawk is obviously only trolling. Agreeing with this means the most damage scenario, including to the peace process on the Irish island. so we can conclude is that you want to impose the maximum damage to the UK.

You understand without a proper A50 and a divorce agreement UK would had been inire straits a year ago. No future agreement would had been negotiated until this agreement was done and respected.


It will be interesting to see how the French fish industry reacts in the end of the year without for them a favourly. In the same way that poles will have something to say if the poles in UK complains too much. Each of the 27 countries plus a few regions and EU parliament need to ratify any deal in november.

We have at least 10 more month with popcorn. And then we can follow the reaction of UK car and financial industry together with scotlands and NI elections for their future in the union.

olle wrote:

We have at least 10 more month with popcorn. And then we can follow the reaction of UK car and financial industry together with Scotlands and NI elections for their future in the union.

Exactly, five more yeats of Brexit fun for you right there.

olle wrote:

You understand without a proper A50 and a divorce agreement UK would had been inire straits a year ago. No future agreement would had been negotiated until this agreement was done and respected.


It will be interesting to see how the French fish industry reacts in the end of the year without for them a favourly. In the same way that poles will have something to say if the poles in UK complains too much. Each of the 27 countries plus a few regions and EU parliament need to ratify any deal in november.

We had an example when Jersey and Guernsey decided to close the fishing waters to french vessels. We had on tv french hilarious saying these guys want to forbid us to fish and they expect to sell these fishes to us. they are dreaming. And effectively after some days things came back to normal.

UK will leave EU aviation safety agency.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 84446.html

What will this mean for airbus?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The only fault Johnsons made was signing the WA, he should have gone for the real Brexit directly.

100% agree........the only thing the WA should have addressed was the divorce payments. NI should have been part of the future relationship

Seahawk is obviously only trolling. Agreeing with this means the most damage scenario, including to the peace process on the Irish island. so we can conclude is that you want to impose the maximum damage to the UK.

It is not trolling, it is my sincere believe that a hard Brexit in early 2019or even in early 2020 would have been better. It would have reduced the period of uncertainty by 1-2 years and the economy was stronger than it is today. The British red lines never allowed anything different than the Australian solution aka no solution.

The hard Brexit after the Corona epidemic will be even more painful for both sides. In my business experience it never made sense to keep negotiating with a party that threatens to go for a solution that is hurting both parties, if it does not get their own demands fulfilled. The best solution is such a case is to cut the ties with that party and try to minimize the damage you will have to endure.