And UK fish can be frozen and exported to the continent - subject to the rules about EU frozen fish, there may be tariffs.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

And UK fish can be frozen and exported to the continent - subject to the rules about EU frozen fish, there may be tariffs.

If there are tariffs then good luck competing with the Canadians who thanks to CETA do have tariff-free access to the EU market for most fishing products.

Seriously, how can someone be stupid enough to think that you could become part of the Single Market without having to follow the rules of the Single Market. I've attacked the intelligence of brexiteers a lot in the past, but surely they have to be smarter than this. Right?

sabenapilot wrote:

LJ wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I haven't been paying attention for the past few months. Has the UK yet been able to conclude the easiest trade negotiation in human history?

No, but the David Frost has given Michel Barnier two weeks to drop his 'ideological approach'. Seems like he doesn't understand why the EU “insists on an ideological approach which makes it more difficult to reach a mutually beneficial agreement”

Amazing how the UK genuinely believes that while the EU indeed never wanted to seperate nor compromise on the 4 freedoms while it was IN it despite Brexiteers claiming it would, it will now suddenly give away the most precious twoo (or even just one) of the 4 freedoms now that it is OUT.

ROTFL

If the UK wants free access to the SM, even just for it goods only, it'll still have to accept all the conditions linked to it: period.
It doesn't matter whether the UK is IN or OUT of the EU: that only gave Westminster a seat at the table in BRU when the rules governing the SM are made.

Crazy. All of this is making me start to think that the UK might not have the strong negotiating hand that David Davis, Nadine Dorries and Boris Johnson insisted repeatedly it did. But maybe that's probably just my latte sipping liberal elitism kicking in?

The most unsurprising news story of the day

https://news.sky.com/story/post-brexit- ... e-11990623

noviorbis77 wrote:

The most unsurprising news story of the day

https://news.sky.com/story/post-brexit- ... e-11990623

Sounds like the Australian model to a degree, I know there was a bit of an uproar in AU about the 457 visa scheme as some business were exploiting the scheme.

I don’t have a problem with foreign workers coming to the UK to work just we get to decide who comes and who dosnt and strictly controlled not just a free for all under freedom of movement

A101 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

The most unsurprising news story of the day

https://news.sky.com/story/post-brexit- ... e-11990623

Sounds like the Australian model to a degree, I know there was a bit of an uproar in AU about the 457 visa scheme as some business were exploiting the scheme.

I don’t have a problem with foreign workers coming to the UK to work just we get to decide who comes and who dosnt and strictly controlled not just a free for all under freedom of movement

The problem for NHS, UK construction industry, farming etc is the cost combined with the fall of £ and health care fees in UK. For a worker from let say Rumania, is it today best to work in Sweden, Germany or UK? If it is no or very small administrative work to go to Sweden and Germany compared to UK in combination with lower income after expenses like health care and living in their local currency.

As I understand UK NHS would break apart if their eastern europe nurses go home, not mention the farming where the UK unemployed has been considered to take over for the same pay.

This government doesn't care about NHS staffing, or in fact the the people in the UK: what they care about it how much money their sponsors can make from deregulating Britain!

Not surpringly, today it has emerged that the economic strategy of Global Britain is to unilaterally slash a lot of import tariffs, officially to reduce the cost of living, although it would be very surpring to see the omission of tariffs to be entirely passed on to consumers... Profit margins in the distribution sector are likely to benefit more than anybody else.

Targetted sectors (notably car industry) would be protected from the expected negative consequences, but the rest of the economy would have to adapt to the new reality and become more competitive on its own, so I'll let you figure out exactly what this would mean to British manufacturing, farmers and fishermen...
The 'Americanisation' of the UK is well underway: this is going to be fun to watch!

sabenapilot wrote:

Not surpringly, today it has emerged that the economic strategy of Global Britain is to unilaterally slash a lot of import tariffs, officially to reduce the cost of living, although it would be very surpring to see the omission of tariffs to be entirely passed on to consumers... Profit margins in the distribution sector are likely to benefit more than anybody else.

That doesn't help UK industry a lot when the EU and others certainly won't follow suit (in part because they can't under WTO rules without applying that to all other countries as well!), so integration into multinational supply chains will still keep suffering from Brexit damage.

'Bargain Basement Britain' is about to open... exactly as expected,

The plan is dead obvious: have the masses vote for you in a desperate attempt to rise their decade long stagnated wages by taking control of immigration (Trump style economics) prior to the elections, and then claim you have to open up the country economically (traditional Tory style economics), which will ironically wipe away most of the jobs of those who voted for it.

Yep, there must have been quite a few who popped a bottle of French Champagne on election night, laughing at all those idiots who voted to make themselves jobless or a working poor at best, all while turning the fatcat Tory party sponsors even wealthier than they already were! Flagwaving really turns out to have been very expensive for millions of Brits! I hope they've all enjoyed the show of the past 4 years, because the casiers are eagerly waiting to collect all they can from the participants of this 'historic event'.

The UK has finally published its appraoch to the future relationship with the EU. Happy reading.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-approach-to-the-future-relationship-with-the-eu

Looks a lot like the ideology-hardened approach of the last months: "Let us cherrypick anything we like (including unbundled, separate partial agreements) or we'll shoot our own brains out with a hard crash-out Brexit!"

Michel, have the tarps at the ready!

One question;

Now we have seen the EU team and the UK team in action for a few years.

During the whole history of EU we at least here in Sweden we have heard how professional the UK administration is and how total mess the EU administration is.

Now after a few years of negotiations, would EU citizens or UK citizens like to keep their"own" team or switch with the opposition? Would EU citizens like to replace its team with the UK team or UK citizen like to get the "Eurocrat" Mr Barnier team?

olle wrote:

One question;

Now we have seen the EU team and the UK team in action for a few years.

During the whole history of EU we at least here in Sweden we have heard how professional the UK administration is and how total mess the EU administration is.

Now after a few years of negotiations, would EU citizens or UK citizens like to keep their"own" team or switch with the opposition? Would EU citizens like to replace its team with the UK team or UK citizen like to get the "Eurocrat" Mr Barnier team?

Well, I don't know what other UK citizens would prefer as their team, but N.Farage repeatedly said he'd like to have Barnier on his team.

Team UK seems illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences and often more inferested in the public perception and political recuperation of something for the current government than the economic benefit of their country: not exactly what you want to see as trade negotiators setting out the lines for the next decades.

Klaus wrote:

Looks a lot like the ideology-hardened approach of the last months: "Let us cherrypick anything we like (including unbundled, separate partial agreements) or we'll shoot our own brains out with a hard crash-out Brexit!"

Michel, have the tarps at the ready!

So what the UK wants is a general tariff free access for free, without any alignment other than on the product quality itself, combined with the ability of opting in on a whole range of sectorial agreements when it suits them. Briefly: SM membership à la carte for free, whenever it suits the UK, yet full sovereignty when it doesn't.
Now that's going to make quite an impression in Brussels, I'm sure! <not>
You'd have expected the UK to have at least made a clear choice AND accept the full consequences of it, but clearly not: still trying to cherry pick.

I think they need to be looking at WTO. But that org. is handicapped by Trump trying to destroy it by not appointing US members.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I think they need to be looking at WTO. But that org. is handicapped by Trump trying to destroy it by not appointing US members.

WTO is pretty useless at present, like you say. Everything that's new is blocked so for the UK this means misery.
Besides, the UK doesn't hold any quota of itself at the WTO, it needs to negotiate a share of the EU export quota first, unless it thinks other countries will just welcome its products like that on their markets in return for the UK slashing their import duties, but then I fear Brexiteers are in for another desillusion: most countries will just pocket the benefits from lower/no import duties on their goods, while not returning the favour. (it's Canada's official strategy even!)

Anyway, if they are indeed looking at no deal, then I honnestly dont know why they genuinely think they can make sectorial deals still? It's not going to happen that way, and certainly not if they do not live up to the promisses of the withdrawal agreement on NI! It's one thing to think you can have your cake and eat it, but it's another thing to think that cake will be baked for you by others even!

sabenapilot wrote:

Besides, the UK doesn't hold any quota of itself at the WTO, it needs to negotiate a share of the EU export quota first, unless it thinks other countries will just welcome its products like that on their markets in return for the UK slashing their import duties, but then I fear Brexiteers are in for another desillusion: most countries will just pocket the benefits from lower/no import duties on their goods, while not returning the favour. (it's Canada's official strategy even!)

This is a big problem for the EU. Many third countries argue that the quotas they have with the EU are with the EU and not with EU + UK (the former EU28). A such EU countries will see an influx of goods from third countries. The UK will have to negotiate quota. As such the third countries (excluding UK) will be the biggest beneficiaries of a hard Brexit as their export possibilities increase to both EU and UK.

sabenapilot wrote:

olle wrote:

One question;

Now we have seen the EU team and the UK team in action for a few years.

During the whole history of EU we at least here in Sweden we have heard how professional the UK administration is and how total mess the EU administration is.

Now after a few years of negotiations, would EU citizens or UK citizens like to keep their"own" team or switch with the opposition? Would EU citizens like to replace its team with the UK team or UK citizen like to get the "Eurocrat" Mr Barnier team?

Well, I don't know what other UK citizens would prefer as their team, but N.Farage repeatedly said he'd like to have Barnier on his team.

Team UK seems illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences and often more inferested in the public perception and political recuperation of something for the current government than the economic benefit of their country: not exactly what you want to see as trade negotiators setting out the lines for the next decades.

Of course, the UK team is illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences. What else would you expect? They are the new kid on the block, the UK civil service hasn't done this for over 40years, the EU team on the other hand, does this for a living. With all do respect for the people who actually do this, the UK team are amateurs and were thrown in for political gain.

Dutchy wrote:

Of course, the UK team is illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences. What else would you expect? They are the new kid on the block, the UK civil service hasn't done this for over 40years, the EU team on the other hand, does this for a living. With all do respect for the people who actually do this, the UK team are amateurs and were thrown in for political gain.

I'd agrue they have never really done this ever even.

The UK joined the EEC in 1973, so some 47 years ago: back in those days FTAs were exceptionally rare and in any case very limited in scope (basic products and simple manufacturing goods).

The few FTA's the UK has that predates the EEC are fun to read for sure, but they are ridiculously outdated and naive from today's perspective, to the point they can not even be re-activated any more, like was the plan at some point.

Not only are there no people still around from the pre-EEC days in Whitehall, but the global economy has changed: today we have intergrated global suppply chains with half-finished goods crossing borders several times before they can be delivered to the end-customer On top of that, the geopolitical setup has changed for Britain; it is no longer the center of a soft empire (the Commonwealth has become largely ceremonial, at best).

Far more than struggling to negotiate advantagous FTAs with the EU or others, Britain will be stuggling to accept its new place in the world; it's simply aiming far too high, deluded by the shielding of its own dwindling imporantance by its membership of an ever higher punshing EU on the global stage.

Dutchy wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

olle wrote:

One question;

Now we have seen the EU team and the UK team in action for a few years.

During the whole history of EU we at least here in Sweden we have heard how professional the UK administration is and how total mess the EU administration is.

Now after a few years of negotiations, would EU citizens or UK citizens like to keep their"own" team or switch with the opposition? Would EU citizens like to replace its team with the UK team or UK citizen like to get the "Eurocrat" Mr Barnier team?

Well, I don't know what other UK citizens would prefer as their team, but N.Farage repeatedly said he'd like to have Barnier on his team.

Team UK seems illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences and often more inferested in the public perception and political recuperation of something for the current government than the economic benefit of their country: not exactly what you want to see as trade negotiators setting out the lines for the next decades.

Of course, the UK team is illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences. What else would you expect? They are the new kid on the block, the UK civil service hasn't done this for over 40years, the EU team on the other hand, does this for a living. With all do respect for the people who actually do this, the UK team are amateurs and were thrown in for political gain.

I don't think it's so much them being prepared or not. British negotiators were at the core of the EU negotiating group so the skill pool is there somewhere. The UK tried to poach Canadians, but apparently they weren't offering enough, too.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/08/19/br ... als/211903

Still, I think that's a secondary issue. It's not super-EU technocrats vs. British amateurs that's driving the situation.

A negotiator needs to be given clear guidelines on what are acceptable outcomes, where are the red lines and what can be compromised. Thats how you can develop a negotiating strategy. I am pretty sure the British government is still fixated in PR and so far has only given red line after red line. They've painted themselves in a corner so small not even the most skilled negotiator can work a way out.

So it's slogan after slogan and soundbits which sound acceptable to the people who put Johnson in place, but that fail to address the actual real world challenges the UK is going to be facing. From the looks of it they've been months preparing the blame game rather the negotiations.

Did key people of the UK really think the EU would compromise on its most basic pillars? It's certainly possible that key members of the government really thought British exceptionalism would allow them a way out. It's equally possible that they knew all along this was going to explode at some point and the fallout would make the best clay to create that extremely low regulation Singapore on the Thames they seem to to be aiming for.

JJJ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, I don't know what other UK citizens would prefer as their team, but N.Farage repeatedly said he'd like to have Barnier on his team.

Team UK seems illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences and often more inferested in the public perception and political recuperation of something for the current government than the economic benefit of their country: not exactly what you want to see as trade negotiators setting out the lines for the next decades.

Of course, the UK team is illprepared, unskilled, unaware of trade details and their legal consequences. What else would you expect? They are the new kid on the block, the UK civil service hasn't done this for over 40years, the EU team on the other hand, does this for a living. With all do respect for the people who actually do this, the UK team are amateurs and were thrown in for political gain.

I don't think it's so much them being prepared or not. British negotiators were at the core of the EU negotiating group so the skill pool is there somewhere. The UK tried to poach Canadians, but apparently they weren't offering enough, too.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/08/19/br ... als/211903

Still, I think that's a secondary issue. It's not super-EU technocrats vs. British amateurs that's driving the situation.

A negotiator needs to be given clear guidelines on what are acceptable outcomes, where are the red lines and what can be compromised. Thats how you can develop a negotiating strategy. I am pretty sure the British government is still fixated in PR and so far has only given red line after red line. They've painted themselves in a corner so small not even the most skilled negotiator can work a way out.

So it's slogan after slogan and soundbits which sound acceptable to the people who put Johnson in place, but that fail to address the actual real world challenges the UK is going to be facing. From the looks of it they've been months preparing the blame game rather the negotiations.

Did key people of the UK really think the EU would compromise on its most basic pillars? It's certainly possible that key members of the government really thought British exceptionalism would allow them a way out. It's equally possible that they knew all along this was going to explode at some point and the fallout would make the best clay to create that extremely low regulation Singapore on the Thames they seem to to be aiming for.

This is exactly what the brexiteers want to. I think one very important skill in all negotiations is to try to play scenarios how our team would react if we proposed a idea or red line.

In this case Brexiteers and now the UK government want EU to accept things that would be impossible for UK to accept. I think that without a change in UK WTO is impossible.

But this is a period of time when Trump destroys WTO, not mention Corona.

JJJ wrote:

I don't think it's so much them being prepared or not. British negotiators were at the core of the EU negotiating group so the skill pool is there somewhere.

They are somewhere all right:mostly at the EU still in fact.
Only very few Brits have left the EU to return to work for their country now: most have decided to stay behind, often by taking on a second nationality (that of their spouse or of Belgium, where they hav been living long enough to qualify) and just continue to work for the EU and in these negotiations 'against' the UK in a way...

JJJ wrote:

A negotiator needs to be given clear guidelines on what are acceptable outcomes, where are the red lines and what can be compromised. Thats how you can develop a negotiating strategy. I am pretty sure the British government is still fixated in PR and so far has only given red line after red line. They've painted themselves in a corner so small not even the most skilled negotiator can work a way out.

That is indeed a main problem: from the position politicians got them painted in, there's no escape possible, unless the aim is to somehow glorify the failure to achieve any sort of a deal?
Not sure it's utter political incompetence, or a carefully crafted situation? I think it's actually a combination of both, whit certain people now trying to make sure that a fringe concept they believe in very strongly for personal gain, is going to be the only remaining option left in the end, only to claim that this is somehow still "the will of the people".

Michel Barnier's deep-chilled response to David Frost's complaint letter is nothing surprising, but it must be seen as a shot across the UK's bow:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... -df-wd.pdf

Effectively, it says: "UK, get off your delusional unicorns and cut the whining like entitled brats if you want to get anywhere. And no, none of what we've been saying consistently for years has been a joke as you've apparently been mistaking it and we actually stick with what we've agreed before, too."

Bizarre that this still comes as a shock to some in England.

Maye not so unexpected as theses threads can attest. We explain that for years just to deaf ears

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

olle wrote:

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

Seems that Boris and co know that Scottish Independence is coming

Klaus wrote:

Bizarre that this still comes as a shock to some in England.

A few years ago I would have picked you up on that comment, but not any more. Depressingly sad.

Likewise for :

gkirk wrote:

Seems that Boris and co know that Scottish Independence is coming

Can't blame them for a second if it happens. Whether they get the chance is another question, but under this Govenment if I was Scottish (hell even English and living in England) I'd want to leave the union too.

Who knows, maybe the events of the last few days may slowly start to push public opinion against Boris. In any normal country he wouldn't have even got to be PM but now he's starting to show all the reasons why those of us at the time were screaming that both Brexit and him being PM was a monumental mistake may start to get less of kicking. The diehards will never leave him, but maybe, just maybe there are a few decent people left in England who will waver. It also seems we have a functioning opposition now too, about time.

If Cummings does go, expect Boris to be even more useless and Gove to assert himself even more to line himself up as the natural sucessor.

olle wrote:

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

Yeah I saw that awhile ago and had a chuckle, nothing ventured nothing gained. But it does make sense to a degree in what conditions the EU expects a trade deal looks like. I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement , any future member can in theory compete against the UK and reduce trade between the two if we accept the Terms offered by the EU

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

Yeah I saw that awhile ago and had a chuckle, nothing ventured nothing gained. But it does make sense to a degree in what conditions the EU expects a trade deal looks like. I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement , any future member can in theory compete against the UK and reduce trade between the two if we accept the Terms offered by the EU

Imho it is a reasonable demand, so that the UK has full control of who has access to the UK´s market.

Klaus wrote:

Looks a lot like the ideology-hardened approach of the last months: "Let us cherrypick anything we like (including unbundled, separate partial agreements) or we'll shoot our own brains out with a hard crash-out Brexit!"

Michel, have the tarps at the ready!

It shouldn't surprise you, give it's what the Brextremists wanted all along.

gkirk wrote:

olle wrote:

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

Seems that Boris and co know that Scottish Independence is coming

Which Westminster could and did stave off only while still being an EU member, but Brexit explicitly removes that influence from the UK government and it won't come back this way, of course!

olle wrote:

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

Like Brarnier said: Brexit means Brexit.

This is too ridiculous to spend any time on.

A101 wrote:

I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement

Fine, as you always say, Britain is out, so no more grandfathering for them. Brexit means Brexit

UK's foreign office can always discuss anything like this via its ambassadors in any EU country.

United Kingdom wants to get rid of Huawei in telecom networks in the long term

In Dutch

Seems to me Westminster is giving in to the demands from across the pond. Great Britain needs a trade deal, literally at all cost. Britain has nothing to demand anymore from any one, as all anti-Brexit leute has said all along. But our Brexitremist friends didn't believe that, well I present exhibit one.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

UK's foreign office can always discuss anything like this via its ambassadors in any EU country.

Sure, they can discuss anything they like, but if you want to be taken seriously, you can't. It is just one sign that Johnson/Cummings government doesn't want a deal, they want a hard Brexit. Simple: make a demand which is unreasonable, the other party will not agree, thus you can blame them for not giving in to the demands and thus for breaking off the negotiations.

For some reason Brexiters seem to think that WTO will be enough. It won't, there will be tons of negotiations in order to make it work even minimally satisfactory. It is not a substitute for a real trade agreement. Sometime before the end of July EK needs to be coming up with some trade agreements for essential parts of its economy. Not just with the EU, try the rest of the world.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

For some reason Brexiters seem to think that WTO will be enough. It won't, there will be tons of negotiations in order to make it work even minimally satisfactory. It is not a substitute for a real trade agreement. Sometime before the end of July EK needs to be coming up with some trade agreements for essential parts of its economy. Not just with the EU, try the rest of the world.

WTO terms literally places you at the back of the line, behind anybody who's got some kind of agreement. If you are comfortable with that place, sure trading on WTO rules is just the thing for you.
If our Brexitremist want a trade deal by July, well be prepared to bend over and accept any deal which is offered to you, no matter how bad it is for your people, your exports, your country. Come to think of it, who said: "better no deal, than a bad deal", perhaps this is what she meant by this.

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

Yeah I saw that awhile ago and had a chuckle, nothing ventured nothing gained.But it does make sense to a degree in what conditions the EU expects a trade deal looks like. I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement , any future member can in theory compete against the UK and reduce trade between the two if we accept the Terms offered by the EU

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained"
Talking about overestimating your own importance!

The problem Brexiteers have is that the EU didn't implode upon Brexit as they genuinely expected; on the contrary: it's very likely to expand further in future.
And that brings 2 dire consequences for the UK which it didn't envisage prior to the referendum:

1- Any trade agreement the UK signs with the EU (at 27) will automatically be transposable to all future EU members too.
The UK could and likely will get into a situation where it thinks it has negotiated a balanced mechanism of mutual market access, yet -over time- will see that balance being lost because future new EU memberstates will start to take benefit of the UK market acces granted to them under an EU-UK FTA, without any particular reciprocal advantage to the UK.

2- Even if the UK manages to negotiate a zero tariff deal with the EU, it is still at risk of losing its current export markets in the SM to competitors from other third countries which are currently out of the SM still, but which may decide to join and thus benefit from totally frictionless trade as EU memberstate at that point in time: the risk of being leapfrogged in the queue so to say.

But these are just the logical consequences of Brexit Michel Barnier has always warned about!
The UK was free to leave, but it can not expect the EU to keep considering its national interest still, nor others not to fill the gaping void left by it!

Besides, this risk now suddenly discovered by Brexiteers actually exist in many other FTAs they hope to conclude too!
The POTUS is on record to be willing to buy Greenland: image he succeeds after the UK signed a FTA which will likely cover agricultural and fishery products, assuming such would be fairly limited due to the transatlantic transportation costs involved... Now, fish from Greenland would suddenly change all that.
Shouldn't the UK protect its fishing communities proactively by negotiating a veto over which territories can join the USA in future too?
That will go down will in Washington, I'm sure....
Same problem exist with trade deals with ASEAN, Mercosur etc... there too, tine little UK doesn't really know who they are signing the deal with in future, and will have close to zero leverage to renegotiate later: it proofs the entire trade vision of the UK is built on an outdated world view of static nationstates, whereas reality of today is that of dynamic trading blocks and economic superpowers.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement

Fine, as you always say, Britain is out, so no more grandfathering for them. Brexit means Brexit

I’m more than happy to be free from the SM/CU, just don’t expect that the UK will live by the regulatory alignment and the ECJ from the demands of the EU

frmrCapCadet wrote:

For some reason Brexiters seem to think that WTO will be enough. It won't, there will be tons of negotiations in order to make it work even minimally satisfactory. It is not a substitute for a real trade agreement. Sometime before the end of July EK needs to be coming up with some trade agreements for essential parts of its economy. Not just with the EU, try the rest of the world.

Well for the time being trading with the EU on WTO is all we need as an independent sovereign nation, the EU is not the be all and end all for the UK.

As to other agreements the EU/UK agreement is taking up all the media space at the moment so it’s all you hear, a number of mutual recognition agreement and we are expecting talks to happen soon with the major trading partners within the pacfic rim of nations.

It’s not really important to have agreements set in stone by July, what’s more important is getting the right agreements in place that benefits each nation as independent sovereign countries

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement

Fine, as you always say, Britain is out, so no more grandfathering for them. Brexit means Brexit

I’m more than happy to be free from the SM/CU, just don’t expect that the UK will live by the regulatory alignment and the ECJ from the demands of the EU

No excess, you need no alignment so no ECJ, Just don't cherry-pick. Brexit means Brexit. I am done with the Brexit lot.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

UK Demands to have veto over EU future;

"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost

If EU wanted any similar with UK....

Yeah I saw that awhile ago and had a chuckle, nothing ventured nothing gained.But it does make sense to a degree in what conditions the EU expects a trade deal looks like. I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement , any future member can in theory compete against the UK and reduce trade between the two if we accept the Terms offered by the EU

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained"
Talking about overestimating your own importance!

Nothing to do with importance as you suggest, it’s more of if you don’t ask you dont get,no different from my relationship with the banks over the years for my home loans, I got cheaper interest rates than what they were giving just by picking up the phone and talking turkey and preparing to walk away. Banks are a lot bigger than me just depends on if they value your custom or not.

sabenapilot wrote:

The problem Brexiteers have is that the EU didn't implode upon Brexit as they genuinely expected; on the contrary: it's very likely to expand further in future.

I don’t think anyone expected the EU to implode, another soundbite people like regurgitating

sabenapilot wrote:

And that brings 2 dire consequences for the UK which it didn't envisage prior to the referendum:

1- Any trade agreement the UK signs with the EU (at 27) will automatically be transposable to all future EU members too.

Unless the is something within the FTA, hence why the UK brought it up

sabenapilot wrote:

The UK could and likely will get into a situation where it thinks it has negotiated a balanced mechanism of mutual market access, yet -over time- will see that balance being lost because future new EU memberstates will start to take benefit of the UK market acces granted to them under an EU-UK FTA, without any particular reciprocal advantage to the UK.

No different to what can happen now irrespective of being in the CU/SM or not

sabenapilot wrote:

2- Even if the UK manages to negotiate a zero tariff deal with the EU, it is still at risk of losing its current export markets in the SM to competitors from other third countries which are currently out of the SM still, but which may decide to join and thus benefit from totally frictionless trade as EU memberstate at that point in time: the risk of being leapfrogged in the queue so to say.

That was already happening whilst we were member, trade between the EU/UK was already falling even before the referenda, whilst trade with non-EU members was increasing

sabenapilot wrote:

But these are just the logical consequences of Brexit Michel Barnier has always warned about!
The UK was free to leave, but it can not expect the EU to keep considering its national interest still, nor others not to fill the gaping void left by it!

Hardly, it’s just natural progression of the talks that have brought the subject up, well by the by its actully in every ones interest to consider the other interests overall as you may want something that’s more benefit towards yourself, otherwise as been going on with the negotiations with each side giving the one fingered salute

sabenapilot wrote:

Besides, this risk now suddenly discovered by Brexiteers actually exist in many other FTAs they hope to conclude too!
The POTUS is on record to be willing to buy Greenland: image he succeeds after the UK signed a FTA which will likely cover agricultural and fishery products, assuming such would be fairly limited due to the transatlantic transportation costs involved... Now, fish from Greenland would suddenly change all that.
Shouldn't the UK protect its fishing communities proactively by negotiating a veto over which territories can join the USA in future too?
That will go down will in Washington, I'm sure....
Same problem exist with trade deals with ASEAN, Mercosur etc... there too, tine little UK doesn't really know who they are signing the deal with in future, and will have close to zero leverage to renegotiate later: it proofs the entire trade vision of the UK is built on an outdated world view of static nationstates, whereas reality of today is that of dynamic trading blocks and economic superpowers.

I think you living in fantasy land I also vaguely remember that Trump also want provisions that treaties have to be recertified every 5 years or so. But let’s say it does happen I imagine the Vienna Convention may provide a way out if one desires it pending circumstance

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, as you always say, Britain is out, so no more grandfathering for them. Brexit means Brexit

I’m more than happy to be free from the SM/CU, just don’t expect that the UK will live by the regulatory alignment and the ECJ from the demands of the EU

No excess, you need no alignment so no ECJ, Just don't cherry-pick. Brexit means Brexit. I am done with the Brexit lot.

Every trade deal amounts to cherry picking, no different to some elements that the EU wanted with the US FTA

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

I’m more than happy to be free from the SM/CU, just don’t expect that the UK will live by the regulatory alignment and the ECJ from the demands of the EU

No excess, you need no alignment so no ECJ, Just don't cherry-pick. Brexit means Brexit. I am done with the Brexit lot.

Every trade deal amounts to cherry picking, no different to some elements that the EU wanted with the US FTA

The time of these kinds of generalities are over. Britain is out because of the will of you and other Brexiteers and Brexitremists. It has been shown that Britain has no leverage or minimal leverage if you like (because you will say: yeah they have leverage on security of something trivial like that), we have seen none of the easy trade deals, none. We have seen the economic consequences (sure obscured now because of Corona).
So time to make a choice, accept your status in the world and bag for a trade deal (as we have seen giving in to pressure from America with Huawei) or go alone, go and trade for WTO for a while, see how that turns out and see if all the lies fed to you y the Brexitrimist will turn out to be the truth - I can't see how, but hey, what do I know, let's do this giant gamble over the lives of ordinary Britains, not that you care in Australia, but hey, what does that matter that it will hurt me more financially than you.

olle wrote:

One question;

Now we have seen the EU team and the UK team in action for a few years.

During the whole history of EU we at least here in Sweden we have heard how professional the UK administration is and how total mess the EU administration is.

Now after a few years of negotiations, would EU citizens or UK citizens like to keep their"own" team or switch with the opposition? Would EU citizens like to replace its team with the UK team or UK citizen like to get the "Eurocrat" Mr Barnier team?

Aren't the best UK people actually on the EU team, though ?

zkojq wrote:

Seriously, how can someone be stupid enough to think that you could become part of the Single Market without having to follow the rules of the Single Market. I've attacked the intelligence of brexiteers a lot in the past, but surely they have to be smarter than this. Right?

Well, the man behind Brexit just said on live TV that he broke the lockdown rules to "test his eyesight" by driving around with his family in the car as a "good father would do" so either he's stupid, or he believes the UK public is stupid, or everyone involved is stupid...

Aesma wrote:

olle wrote:

One question;

Now we have seen the EU team and the UK team in action for a few years.

During the whole history of EU we at least here in Sweden we have heard how professional the UK administration is and how total mess the EU administration is.

Now after a few years of negotiations, would EU citizens or UK citizens like to keep their"own" team or switch with the opposition? Would EU citizens like to replace its team with the UK team or UK citizen like to get the "Eurocrat" Mr Barnier team?

Aren't the best UK people actually on the EU team, though ?

yes they were, don't know if they still are though, does anyone know if the UK civil servants within the EC are dismissed yet? I mean the UK is formally out, so there should be no place for them, or has the majority applied for another citizenship because they wanted to stay?

Dutchy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

olle wrote:

One question;

Now we have seen the EU team and the UK team in action for a few years.

During the whole history of EU we at least here in Sweden we have heard how professional the UK administration is and how total mess the EU administration is.

Now after a few years of negotiations, would EU citizens or UK citizens like to keep their"own" team or switch with the opposition? Would EU citizens like to replace its team with the UK team or UK citizen like to get the "Eurocrat" Mr Barnier team?

Aren't the best UK people actually on the EU team, though ?

yes they were, don't know if they still are though, does anyone know if the UK civil servants within the EC are dismissed yet? I mean the UK is formally out, so there should be no place for them, or has the majority applied for another citizenship because they wanted to stay?

many of them that wants to stay inside EU for example private reasons has applied for EU passports.

This actually means that some countries now have problem with represents because their "own" people cannot take their positions because "hidden" UK officials.

Mr Cummings seems to run things that he always been running things. For me he is a true Brexiteer.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

No excess, you need no alignment so no ECJ, Just don't cherry-pick. Brexit means Brexit. I am done with the Brexit lot.

Every trade deal amounts to cherry picking, no different to some elements that the EU wanted with the US FTA

The time of these kinds of generalities are over.

Its going to go on for far longer than you think. there will always be something to talk about whether it July, 1st January 21 or years down the track

Dutchy wrote:

Britain is out because of the will of you and other Brexiteers and Brexitremists.

Yep that's because the majority voted leave

Dutchy wrote:

It has been shown that Britain has no leverage or minimal leverage if you like (because you will say: yeah they have leverage on security of something trivial like that), we have seen none of the easy trade deals, none. We have seen the economic consequences (sure obscured now because of Corona).

the only thing you have shown is you still don't understand what leaving means

Dutchy wrote:

So time to make a choice, accept your status in the world and bag for a trade deal (as we have seen giving in to pressure from America with Huawei) or go alone, go and trade for WTO for a while,

There's no need to beg and as so far we haven't, the negotiations with the EU haven't finished yet.
As to US pressure everyone will be under pressure from Trump and that includes all members of NATO, but the recent backflip in regards to Huawei has more to do with Johnsons own backbench with anti-Chinese sentiment increasing due to Covid -19 then anything Trump has done(but knowing Trump he will claim it was him all along that got Johnson to change his mind)

Dutchy wrote:

see how that turns out and see if all the lies fed to you y the Brexitrimist will turn out to be the truth -

Well wont be long if the negotiations continue the way they have been going

Dutchy wrote:

let's do this giant gamble over the lives of ordinary Britains, not that you care in Australia, but hey, what does that matter that it will hurt me more financially than you.