It seems like all negotiations will be over video because of Corona.

even the wording canceled / postponed is used;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98561.html

olle wrote:

even the wording canceled / postponed is used;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98561.html

For one particular session, yes, but not for the entire negotiations.

The problem for the UK government is that BoJo needs to uphold the obviously false impression that he was actually interested in anything other than a no deal outcome.

With the Corona pandemic taking up more and more of the political oxygen it will become less and less plausible for him to stick with that ludicrous self-imposed deadline without asking for an extension, so he's being pushed towards either admitting that he never wanted an actual deal and thus pushing the UK even deeper into the Corona-laced abyss or alternatively conceding that an extension will be necessary to prevent the worst outcome.

Of course as we can see with North Korea some leaders don't shy away from the most absurd tactics to uphold their grandstanding facade, but the actual and very real price tag for that approach is getting bigger and bigger by the minute.

Klaus wrote:

olle wrote:

even the wording canceled / postponed is used;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98561.html

For one particular session, yes, but not for the entire negotiations.

The problem for the UK government is that BoJo needs to uphold the obviously false impression that he was actually interested in anything other than a no deal outcome.

With the Corona pandemic taking up more and more of the political oxygen it will become less and less plausible for him to stick with that ludicrous self-imposed deadline without asking for an extension, so he's being pushed towards either admitting that he never wanted an actual deal and thus pushing the UK even deeper into the Corona-laced abyss or alternatively conceding that an extension will be necessary to prevent the worst outcome.

Of course as we can see with North Korea some leaders don't shy away from the most absurd tactics to uphold their grandstanding facade, but the actual and very real price tag for that approach is getting bigger and bigger by the minute.

This might be something good coming out of the Corona-crisis.

The Schengen area has caused some issues this time round. It’s helped spread coronavirus. There’s a reason UK and Ireland were left out of the US travel ban.

Please stop with that bullshit. One of the first to spread the disease was a brit coming to Chamonix from Singapore and then he went to Ibiza. Schengen as nothing to do with that.

Arion640 wrote:

The Schengen area has caused some issues this time round. It’s helped spread coronavirus. There’s a reason UK and Ireland were left out of the US travel ban.

True, this is a perfect example why you need to control your borders. I hope the UK closes its borders to Schengen asap.

Olddog wrote:

Please stop with that bullshit. One of the first to spread the disease was a brit coming to Chamonix from Singapore and then he went to Ibiza. Schengen as nothing to do with that.

Why are Schengen area passengers banned from the US then?

Olddog wrote:

Please stop with that bullshit. One of the first to spread the disease was a brit coming to Chamonix from Singapore and then he went to Ibiza. Schengen as nothing to do with that.

Which is why they were able to identify the origins of transfer easier, unless they step up border controls in Schengen Area effected persons can spread the virus with impunity within Schengen.

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Please stop with that bullshit. One of the first to spread the disease was a brit coming to Chamonix from Singapore and then he went to Ibiza. Schengen as nothing to do with that.

unless they step up border controls in Schengen Area effected persons can spread the virus with impunity within Schengen.

What exactly are you going to check then?

Or do you mean close the borders off completely?

Locking up people in their country still allows the virus to spread with umpunity within that country, as it is currently doing pretty much everywhere at the same pace, just shifted by a certain amount of days depending on its first arrival there… shouldn't you maybe set up borders within that country too then, say between counties, by that logic then?? And then later between cities?

Look, we're living in the 21st century, people do not stay put in the same place their whole lives: they will travel, whether it's on a passport, or passport free: the only thing that can slow this virus from spreading too quickly is social distancing for those who don't have it (yet) and quarantine for those who do: that quarantine is not to be defined as 'remain within your own country' like some seem to suggest, but rather 'remain within your own house'.

All the rest is political nonsense: a virus doesn't carry a passport and it couldn't care less about its colour...

Arion640 wrote:

The Schengen area has caused some issues this time round. It’s helped spread coronavirus. There’s a reason UK and Ireland were left out of the US travel ban.

Yeah, number of cases. Your SAGE guy said the UK is probably at between 5,000 and 10,000, yesterday.

Unsurprisingly - and on cue:

“President Donald Trump says that he "may add" the UK to the list of European countries affected by the US travel ban. He said his government is looking at the rise in cases in Britain in the past 24 hours, which he described as "precipitous".

The total number of cases in the UK is now 798, up by more than 200.”

Only a matter of time.

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Please stop with that bullshit. One of the first to spread the disease was a brit coming to Chamonix from Singapore and then he went to Ibiza. Schengen as nothing to do with that.

Which is why they were able to identify the origins of transfer easier, unless they step up border controls in Schengen Area effected persons can spread the virus with impunity within Schengen.

That hasn’t really worked for the UK, has it? No closing borders. No monitoring pax.

In any case, this wasn’t about infected Italians running amok around Europe as much as it was about people going about their vacation and business. As citizens, they would have been allowed to return “home” anyway. Would birders have stopped them? It didn’t stop many Brits.

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The Schengen area has caused some issues this time round. It’s helped spread coronavirus. There’s a reason UK and Ireland were left out of the US travel ban.

Yeah, number of cases. Your SAGE guy said the UK is probably at between 5,000 and 10,000, yesterday.

Unsurprisingly - and on cue:

“President Donald Trump says that he "may add" the UK to the list of European countries affected by the US travel ban. He said his government is looking at the rise in cases in Britain in the past 24 hours, which he described as "precipitous".

The total number of cases in the UK is now 798, up by more than 200.”

Only a matter of time.

Yes, that may be so. But Schengen countries were banned first and the free movement area has accelerated the spread of the virus. It has had a real human cost in this situation.

Arion640 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The Schengen area has caused some issues this time round. It’s helped spread coronavirus. There’s a reason UK and Ireland were left out of the US travel ban.

Yeah, number of cases. Your SAGE guy said the UK is probably at between 5,000 and 10,000, yesterday.

Unsurprisingly - and on cue:

“President Donald Trump says that he "may add" the UK to the list of European countries affected by the US travel ban. He said his government is looking at the rise in cases in Britain in the past 24 hours, which he described as "precipitous".

The total number of cases in the UK is now 798, up by more than 200.”

Only a matter of time.

Yes, that may be so. But Schengen countries were banned first and the free movement area has accelerated the spread of the virus. It has had a real human cost in this situation.

Yeah, no. The worst hit cases other than Italy (Iran, South Korea) aren’t known for their open borders. Neither is the US, which is now in a state of emergency.

In any case, SAGE and the CMO haven’t called for the UK borders to be closed. Why not? The science, evidence and all, doesn’t support that as a measure. They pointedly stated that. Let me guess - they’re “experts”, and that’s an insult in Brexiteer lexicon, so what do they know?

Your argument might get traction on Breitbart, but maybe take a minute to read (or watch) what SAGE and CMO Dr Whitty have said about it.

Arion640 wrote:

Yes, that may be so. But Schengen countries were banned first

By the moron in the White House, who quickly after stumbling into office had the Obama-era center for pandemic response destroyed which could now have saved many americans' lives was it not for Trump's frothing-at-the-mouth resentment of anything Obama had ever touched.

And who exempted the UK not for any actual rational reason (the numbers certainly couldn't have justified it!) but simply because the current UK PM is sucking up to him while most EU leaders don't, which Trump viscerally resents.

Trump hates the EU and like BoJo he thought he could distract from his own catastrophically inept crisis response by bashing the EU as a scapegoat and stoking xeonophobia as usual with that nonsense of a "foreign virus" (you can be sure that almost all Corona viruses in the USA are homegrown by now!).

But that scapegoating play had worked so great for BoJo in the UK, hadn't it...?

and the free movement area has accelerated the spread of the virus. It has had a real human cost in this situation.

That is completely, absurdly false.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Please stop with that bullshit. One of the first to spread the disease was a brit coming to Chamonix from Singapore and then he went to Ibiza. Schengen as nothing to do with that.

unless they step up border controls in Schengen Area effected persons can spread the virus with impunity within Schengen.

What exactly are you going to check then?

Or do you mean close the borders off completely?

Locking up people in their country still allows the virus to spread with umpunity within that country, as it is currently doing pretty much everywhere at the same pace, just shifted by a certain amount of days depending on its first arrival there… shouldn't you maybe set up borders within that country too then, say between counties, by that logic then?? And then later between cities?

Look, we're living in the 21st century, people do not stay put in the same place their whole lives: they will travel, whether it's on a passport, or passport free: the only thing that can slow this virus from spreading too quickly is social distancing for those who don't have it (yet) and quarantine for those who do: that quarantine is not to be defined as 'remain within your own country' like some seem to suggest, but rather 'remain within your own house'.

All the rest is political nonsense: a virus doesn't carry a passport and it couldn't care less about its colour...

if you want to contain it yes borders have to most likely close, I don't think its far off nations stopping the movement between countries its already happening now

I'm not really sure what this has got to do with Brexit, there are other threads pertaining to corona

After one journalist asked why regions of schengen with less infected are banned compared to UK, trump says that UK might be banned as well as we exåect from the USA administration all reactions is ad hoc.

Do not call victoria.. Some journalist questions to mr trump make him suggest that there will get a travel ban on UK as well,


https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... pdate-news

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Yes, that may be so. But Schengen countries were banned first

By the moron in the White House, who quickly after stumbling into office had the Obama-era center for pandemic response destroyed which could now have saved many americans' lives was it not for Trump's frothing-at-the-mouth resentment of anything Obama had ever touched.

And who exempted the UK not for any actual rational reason (the numbers certainly couldn't have justified it!) but simply because the current UK PM is sucking up to him while most EU leaders don't, which Trump viscerally resents.

Trump hates the EU and like BoJo he thought he could distract from his own catastrophically inept crisis response by bashing the EU as a scapegoat and stoking xeonophobia as usual with that nonsense of a "foreign virus" (you can be sure that almost all Corona viruses in the USA are homegrown by now!).

But that scapegoating play had worked so great for BoJo in the UK, hadn't it...?

and the free movement area has accelerated the spread of the virus. It has had a real human cost in this situation.

That is completely, absurdly false.

Why has Ireland escaped the ban then? That’s an EU country and varadkar doesn’t suck up like boris allegedly does (he doesn’t).

Ireland has more cases than some Schengen area countries. So your analysis is completely false.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Please stop with that bullshit. One of the first to spread the disease was a brit coming to Chamonix from Singapore and then he went to Ibiza. Schengen as nothing to do with that.

Which is why they were able to identify the origins of transfer easier, unless they step up border controls in Schengen Area effected persons can spread the virus with impunity within Schengen.

That hasn’t really worked for the UK, has it? No closing borders. No monitoring pax.

In any case, this wasn’t about infected Italians running amok around Europe as much as it was about people going about their vacation and business. As citizens, they would have been allowed to return “home” anyway. Would birders have stopped them? It didn’t stop many Brits.

Admittedly its easier for NZ but closing the borders or placing restrictions on new arrival's is the only way to contain the outbreak any further.


Coronavirus: New Zealand brings in 'world's toughest border restrictions' to fight outbreak

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... k-11957379

the truth for USA with the number of death in relation to cases is probably that the testing is low and the health care systems response is inefficient like was the case in Italy a few weeks ago. This in combination with a Trump admin acting ad hoc....

Arion640 wrote:

Why has Ireland escaped the ban then? That’s an EU country and varadkar doesn’t suck up like boris allegedly does (he doesn’t).

Varadkar had just visited Trump in person, so he still occupied space in Trump's scattered brain when he made his ad hoc announcement.

Ireland has more cases than some Schengen area countries. So your analysis is completely false.

With Trump there is no "analysis" – his only priority is what's good for himself and he hates experts telling him actual information because he doesn't get it and (rightly) thinks he's looking stupid next to them.

I am amazed that some people think that Trump makes any rational sense.

Olddog wrote:

I am amazed that some people think that Trump makes any rational sense.

He's the answer to "Come on, how bad could it be if I cast this crazy vote this time? It doesn't matter anyway who's in charge!", quite the same way as the Brexit vote.

If we try to come back to the main subjects

Brexit that happened a few week ago

FTA negotiations UK EU, UK USA, UK other countries

I think the corona outbreak shows that in EU UK deal with an entity that for good or worse is transparent and if UK want to understand pretty much can predict an outcome.

In the FTA the corona handling and trade wars have shown how unpredictable and ad hoc the USA government is.

What is easiest for UK to negotiate with?

By the way, schengen seems to show it works in dire times. It is possible to close borders within schengen. Has USA still closed its intra state borders with for example washington state?

USA seems today to act like Italy did a month ago.

Klaus wrote:

Olddog wrote:

I am amazed that some people think that Trump makes any rational sense.

He's the answer to "Come on, how bad could it be if I cast this crazy vote this time? It doesn't matter anyway who's in charge!", quite the same way as the Brexit vote.

Time to build a bridge and get over that the UK has left the EU, the referendum is done and dusted and the turmoil about us leaving should be in the past, time to reflect if an acceptable trade agreement can be reached by both parties. we should be moving on

The problem is what acceptable means. I am sure that the EU and the UK hae a very different view about that.

Olddog wrote:

The problem is what acceptable means. I am sure that the EU and the UK hae a very different view about that.

As cleary visible in the draft agreement which the EU prepared.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/13/brexit-eu-demands-uk-negotiations-draft-treaty

It seems that the EU is prepared to make some consessions in the area of fisheries, but only if Boris signs on the dotted line (which he won't do given the other provisions).

Olddog wrote:

The problem is what acceptable means. I am sure that the EU and the UK hae a very different view about that.

clearly acceptable means an agreement is reached that both sides agree with, if different ant they cant accept it means its unacceptable no agreement will be reached

LJ wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The problem is what acceptable means. I am sure that the EU and the UK hae a very different view about that.

It seems that the EU is prepared to make some consessions in the area of fisheries, but only if Boris signs on the dotted line (which he won't do given the other provisions).

It was clearly an area the EU was never going to win in, as it directly relates to Johnson domestic standing within the electorate.

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The problem is what acceptable means. I am sure that the EU and the UK hae a very different view about that.

It seems that the EU is prepared to make some consessions in the area of fisheries, but only if Boris signs on the dotted line (which he won't do given the other provisions).

It was clearly an area the EU was never going to win in, as it directly relates to Johnson domestic standing within the electorate.

Losing the EU export market would be devastating for the tiny UK fishing industry, so the compromise will be effectively the current status plus some more scientific oversight in the end. I expect that to be Barnier's actual goal.

It bears reminding that the current situation has been completely misrepresented by BoJo and the other Leavers as the EU somehow forcibly pillaging the UK's fishing rights, but actually the current situation is mostly the result of the UK's own decisions, both governmental and by rights holders selling those off for cash (and apparently expecting now to rob them back for free).

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

It seems that the EU is prepared to make some consessions in the area of fisheries, but only if Boris signs on the dotted line (which he won't do given the other provisions).

It was clearly an area the EU was never going to win in, as it directly relates to Johnson domestic standing within the electorate.

Losing the EU export market would be devastating for the tiny UK fishing industry, so the compromise will be effectively the current status plus some more scientific oversight in the end. I expect that to be Barnier's actual goal.

It bears reminding that the current situation has been completely misrepresented by BoJo and the other Leavers as the EU somehow forcibly pillaging the UK's fishing rights, but actually the current situation is mostly the result of the UK's own decisions, both governmental and by rights holders selling those off for cash (and apparently expecting now to rob them back for free).

Just needs reminding that the UK will take back its exclusive economic zone, what industry do by selling its quotas/rights is up to them and will most likely have conditions attached to whom they can sell to, they only difference now is it comes under UK government control not Brussels. we are not going to stop foreign trawlers fishing in UK EEZ, its most likely that the catch will/may have to be landed within the UK and processed

A101 wrote:

Just needs reminding that the UK will take back its exclusive economic zone, what industry do by selling its quotas/rights is up to them and will most likely have conditions attached to whom they can sell to, they only difference now is it comes under UK government control not Brussels.

It's been under the EU agreement and it will be under a new agreement in the future (unless, of course, the UK crashes out hard).

we are not going to stop foreign trawlers fishing in UK EEZ, its most likely that the catch will/may have to be landed within the UK and processed

That would make no economic sense at all.

And if rights holders should claw their rights back from their licensees there will certainly be a need for reimbursement, or corresponding lawsuits about that.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

It was clearly an area the EU was never going to win in, as it directly relates to Johnson domestic standing within the electorate.

Losing the EU export market would be devastating for the tiny UK fishing industry, so the compromise will be effectively the current status plus some more scientific oversight in the end. I expect that to be Barnier's actual goal.

It bears reminding that the current situation has been completely misrepresented by BoJo and the other Leavers as the EU somehow forcibly pillaging the UK's fishing rights, but actually the current situation is mostly the result of the UK's own decisions, both governmental and by rights holders selling those off for cash (and apparently expecting now to rob them back for free).

Just needs reminding that the UK will take back its exclusive economic zone, what industry do by selling its quotas/rights is up to them and will most likely have conditions attached to whom they can sell to, they only difference now is it comes under UK government control not Brussels. we are not going to stop foreign trawlers fishing in UK EEZ, its most likely that the catch will/may have to be landed within the UK and processed

So the UK is going the sell the quote twice? Or is the UK going to compensate the EU fishers who bought UK quotas?

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Just needs reminding that the UK will take back its exclusive economic zone, what industry do by selling its quotas/rights is up to them and will most likely have conditions attached to whom they can sell to, they only difference now is it comes under UK government control not Brussels.

It's been under the EU agreement and it will be under a new agreement in the future (unless, of course, the UK crashes out hard).

I doubt very much it will be part of the FTA, most likely will have a foreign fishing quota that will be open EEZ to non UK fishing fleet

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

we are not going to stop foreign trawlers fishing in UK EEZ, its most likely that the catch will/may have to be landed within the UK and processed

That would make no economic sense at all.

Might not for predominantly EU fishing fleet catch that doesn't go thru UK processing now, its all about capturing the value added portion to the UK economy

Klaus wrote:

And if rights holders should claw their rights back from their licensees there will certainly be a need for reimbursement, or corresponding lawsuits about that.

You wont have the ECJ to hid behind, we remember R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport well

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Which is why they were able to identify the origins of transfer easier, unless they step up border controls in Schengen Area effected persons can spread the virus with impunity within Schengen.

That hasn’t really worked for the UK, has it? No closing borders. No monitoring pax.

In any case, this wasn’t about infected Italians running amok around Europe as much as it was about people going about their vacation and business. As citizens, they would have been allowed to return “home” anyway. Would birders have stopped them? It didn’t stop many Brits.

Admittedly its easier for NZ but closing the borders or placing restrictions on new arrival's is the only way to contain the outbreak any further.


Coronavirus: New Zealand brings in 'world's toughest border restrictions' to fight outbreak

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... k-11957379

That’s a rather meaningless truism.

You could contain it even better if you put border restrictions-type on infected houses, neighborhoods, communities, districts, states and so on. All of those come at some social and economic cost. So does closing borders. North Korea might well be the safest place in the world right now, but it shouldn’t be your first option.

A101 wrote:

I'm not really sure what this has got to do with Brexit, there are other threads pertaining to corona

It came up in the context of Brexit negotiations, but it’s realistically going to impact just about every post-Brexit negotiation by delaying them by around 2-3 months.

And that’s assuming that this doesn’t have a noteworthy change on economics, demographics and reconsideration of relying too much on other countries - the latter often being trotted our as an argument against free trade. In short, what does it mean for a country that aspires to be “global”, in an age in which globalization and free trade might face its fiercest challenge yet. You’ve alluded to it with borders (and the benefits therein) - in the context of people. But borders apply to goods and services too.

This is a black swan event. And it’s amplified in the Brexit context, because assumptions made yesterday, may not apply today or tomorrow.

Dutchy wrote:

So the UK is going the sell the quote twice? Or is the UK going to compensate the EU fishers who bought UK quotas?

AFAIK most of them have set up UK companies which actually hold the fishing rights. Offcially they've never been in the hand of a non-UK company. However, ultimatimately the owners are non-UK.

A101 wrote:

Might not for predominantly EU fishing fleet catch that doesn't go thru UK processing now, its all about capturing the value added portion to the UK economy

The primary reason being that it doesn't make economic sense to do so. The market wants frsh fish, not fish which is a few days old and/or frozen. Processing fish which the UK doesn't consume is thus not a good idea (unless the UK start eating the fish caught in UK territory). I think that even in the UK fishing industry they understand that.

A101 wrote:

You wont have the ECJ to hid behind, we remember R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport well

There are always other ways to ensure that the UK pays for it, and it doesn't have to be related to fish at all.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

we are not going to stop foreign trawlers fishing in UK EEZ, its most likely that the catch will/may have to be landed within the UK and processed

That would make no economic sense at all.

This is Brexit thread, economic sense isn't a thing in here.

Given the situation going on I think and hope the UK gov will take the opportunity to blame COVID-19 to request a TP extention to EU. Which would be obviously granted without drama.
It would be irresponsible otherwise.

I mean, there is literraly no downside to such a move... It's a no brainer.

UK wants and need a deal (EU too, of course, but it's less urgent/important). No sense to impose tariffs and all to try to negotiate to remove them later.
But, maybe more importantly, whatever happens in negotiaton now, the GB/NI/ROI border needs to operate next january, like Calais-Dover link . And so far we've seens few evidence of progress in this topic. It was already a challenge and the current crisis adds another barrier to a resolution.I No way there is enough time left to negotiate properly.

olle wrote:

Has USA still closed its intra state borders with for example washington state?

I honestly believe you can do better than that in this Brexit debate.

Dutchy wrote:

So the UK is going the sell the quote twice? Or is the UK going to compensate the EU fishers who bought UK quotas?

So the EU fishers who bought the quotas got nothing for their money so if the quota is removed they need compensation?

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

That hasn’t really worked for the UK, has it? No closing borders. No monitoring pax.

In any case, this wasn’t about infected Italians running amok around Europe as much as it was about people going about their vacation and business. As citizens, they would have been allowed to return “home” anyway. Would birders have stopped them? It didn’t stop many Brits.

Admittedly its easier for NZ but closing the borders or placing restrictions on new arrival's is the only way to contain the outbreak any further.


Coronavirus: New Zealand brings in 'world's toughest border restrictions' to fight outbreak

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... k-11957379

That’s a rather meaningless truism.

You could contain it even better if you put border restrictions-type on infected houses, neighborhoods, communities, districts, states and so on. All of those come at some social and economic cost. So does closing borders. North Korea might well be the safest place in the world right now, but it shouldn’t be your first option.

Its already well established that there is a social and economic cost, the closure of sporting events restricting movement and stock market tumbling, governments have to weigh the short term with the long term with its likely impacts no country is immune to it. Most pandemic generally run its course within a couple of years, but this strain appears to have a higher infection rate than previous impacts like SARS or Swine.

North Korea is hardly safe as NK relies heavily on China for trade and cross border movement, sometimes extreme measures are needed from the beginning but it comes down to knowing when to implement those measure and we have certainly past that point, but applying those measures now will certainly reduce the outbreak and contain it

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

I'm not really sure what this has got to do with Brexit, there are other threads pertaining to corona

It came up in the context of Brexit negotiations, but it’s realistically going to impact just about every post-Brexit negotiation by delaying them by around 2-3 months.

We live in highly technological times teleconferencing has been around for some time ya know, could be delays by a couple of weeks whilst sett up numerous sites but not months

ElPistolero wrote:

And that’s assuming that this doesn’t have a noteworthy change on economics, demographics and reconsideration of relying too much on other countries - the latter often being trotted our as an argument against free trade. In short, what does it mean for a country that aspires to be “global”, in an age in which globalization and free trade might face its fiercest challenge yet. You’ve alluded to it with borders (and the benefits therein) - in the context of people. But borders apply to goods and services too.

Like everything related to trade life goes on once restrictions are removed and economics improve that really doesn't change the way you negotiate for your respective side unless every nation retreats into isolationism. trade has been going on for thousands of years it certainly not going to stop

Grizzly410 wrote:

Given the situation going on I think and hope the UK gov will take the opportunity to blame COVID-19 to request a TP extention to EU. Which would be obviously granted without drama.

of course the EU would grant an extension as you would benefit the most

Grizzly410 wrote:

I mean, there is literraly no downside to such a move... It's a no brainer.

Yes there is it means the longer we are subjected to the whims of the EU legislative process its judicial controls its membership fees and so on and so on

Grizzly410 wrote:

UK wants and need a deal (EU too, of course, but it's less urgent/important). No sense to impose tariffs and all to try to negotiate to remove them later.
But, maybe more importantly, whatever happens in negotiaton now, the GB/NI/ROI border needs to operate next january, like Calais-Dover link . And so far we've seens few evidence of progress in this topic. It was already a challenge and the current crisis adds another barrier to a resolution.I No way there is enough time left to negotiate properly.

Of course everyone would like to see a deal done sooner rather than later as has been illustrated a number of times that a fully bespoke comprehensive agreement can take years, the UK and the EU is so far apart invoking the extension most likely just kicks that same can further down the road except we will be in the same position on the 1st January 2022 instead of 2021, take the band aid off when we either move to WTO rules or bilateral deals negotiations are not going to magically stop.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Given the situation going on I think and hope the UK gov will take the opportunity to blame COVID-19 to request a TP extention to EU. Which would be obviously granted without drama.

of course the EU would grant an extension as you would benefit the most

Oh, gee, after 4 years of this, you still believe this? I can't take it seriously anymore. Apparently Brexitremist will only learn from experience.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Given the situation going on I think and hope the UK gov will take the opportunity to blame COVID-19 to request a TP extention to EU. Which would be obviously granted without drama.

of course the EU would grant an extension as you would benefit the most

No, just no. You can believe in Brexit as much as you want but an extension would suit both side the same. There is no upside to negotiate when the focus must be on a health crisis.
Whatever camp is the originator of the request it needs both to agree, EU would obviously agree to it, can't find any reason for UK not going.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

I mean, there is literraly no downside to such a move... It's a no brainer.

Yes there is it means the longer we are subjected to the whims of the EU legislative process its judicial controls its membership fees and so on and so on

Yeah, and longer time to set up domestic agency for a lot of sectors, make it ready to work full steam in less than 8 months while dealing with an unprecedented sanitary crisis... I'd say that's just sensible to keep the status quo a bit longer.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

UK wants and need a deal (EU too, of course, but it's less urgent/important). No sense to impose tariffs and all to try to negotiate to remove them later.
But, maybe more importantly, whatever happens in negotiaton now, the GB/NI/ROI border needs to operate next january, like Calais-Dover link . And so far we've seens few evidence of progress in this topic. It was already a challenge and the current crisis adds another barrier to a resolution.I No way there is enough time left to negotiate properly.

Of course everyone would like to see a deal done sooner rather than later as has been illustrated a number of times that a fully bespoke comprehensive agreement can take years, the UK and the EU is so far apart invoking the extension most likely just kicks that same can further down the road except we will be in the same position on the 1st January 2022 instead of 2021, take the band aid off when we either move to WTO rules or bilateral deals negotiations are not going to magically stop.

They are not so much further apart, trade experts like Sam Lowe or Dmitry Grozoubinsky wrote pieces identifying possible landing zone reachable in the timeframe. But that was before the COVID-19.
1st january 2021 and 2022 are, well, 1 year apart. One full year to negotiate and work on a better agreement. Can't understand where is the benefit in jumping from the cliff edge.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Given the situation going on I think and hope the UK gov will take the opportunity to blame COVID-19 to request a TP extention to EU. Which would be obviously granted without drama.

of course the EU would grant an extension as you would benefit the most

No, just no. You can believe in Brexit as much as you want but an extension would suit both side the same. There is no upside to negotiate when the focus must be on a health crisis.
Whatever camp is the originator of the request it needs both to agree, EU would obviously agree to it, can't find any reason for UK not going.

While both will have an impact on economics long and short term health crisis or not it dose not change the fact on each other’s position within negotiations. Governments and organisations do tend to have a number of important issues of the day and it’s a fact that important negotiations can and do run in parallel, no different from the current situation and hundreds of other just as important areas that form and govern society but receive no immediate media coverage

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

I mean, there is literraly no downside to such a move... It's a no brainer.

Yes there is it means the longer we are subjected to the whims of the EU legislative process its judicial controls its membership fees and so on and so on

Yeah, and longer time to set up domestic agency for a lot of sectors, make it ready to work full steam in less than 8 months while dealing with an unprecedented sanitary crisis... I'd say that's just sensible to keep the status quo a bit longer.

You try to make it sound like the UK has operated in a vacuum for the last 48yrs, all the areas of competence that the EU has the UK also replicates, it’s not like the UK sent no representatives to work within these areas of competence. No ones denying that there will not be missteps the government will make all governments and organisations do it’s what happens when they do fall from expectations that makes all the difference.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

UK wants and need a deal (EU too, of course, but it's less urgent/important). No sense to impose tariffs and all to try to negotiate to remove them later.
But, maybe more importantly, whatever happens in negotiaton now, the GB/NI/ROI border needs to operate next january, like Calais-Dover link . And so far we've seens few evidence of progress in this topic. It was already a challenge and the current crisis adds another barrier to a resolution.I No way there is enough time left to negotiate properly.

Of course everyone would like to see a deal done sooner rather than later as has been illustrated a number of times that a fully bespoke comprehensive agreement can take years, the UK and the EU is so far apart invoking the extension most likely just kicks that same can further down the road except we will be in the same position on the 1st January 2022 instead of 2021, take the band aid off when we either move to WTO rules or bilateral deals negotiations are not going to magically stop.

They are not so much further apart, trade experts like Sam Lowe or Dmitry Grozoubinsky wrote pieces identifying possible landing zone reachable in the timeframe. But that was before the COVID-19.
1st january 2021 and 2022 are, well, 1 year apart. One full year to negotiate and work on a better agreement. Can't understand where is the benefit in jumping from the cliff edge.

While there are a number of what’s this can end, races are won and lost at the last hurdle and I believe the hurdles are to great between the EU/UK. If the hurdles are to great a further 12mths is not going to achieve nothing but it can have repercussions on other trade negotiations the UK isn’t just looking at the EU we have to look at the big picture not just the EU

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Given the situation going on I think and hope the UK gov will take the opportunity to blame COVID-19 to request a TP extention to EU. Which would be obviously granted without drama.

of course the EU would grant an extension as you would benefit the most

Oh, gee, after 4 years of this, you still believe this? I can't take it seriously anymore. Apparently Brexitremist will only learn from experience.

It would be good if you can explain it yourself how the EU will not benefit the most with an extension which keeps the UK in regulatory alignment and still contribute to the EU budget

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

of course the EU would grant an extension as you would benefit the most

Oh, gee, after 4 years of this, you still believe this? I can't take it seriously anymore. Apparently Brexitremist will only learn from experience.

It would be good if you can explain it yourself how the EU will not benefit the most with an extension which keeps the UK in regulatory alignment and still contribute to the EU budget

The keyword: the most. It is the UK who benefits the most. Utter obvious, except for the most oblivious Brexiteers who still believe in unicorns.