A look at the detail: What is in the Brexit trade deal?
From what has been published so far, the UK conceded on both fisheries and the level playing field, while the EU conceded on governance.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF a post-Brexit trade deal being struck has been welcomed by politicians in the UK, EU and Ireland with much fanfare.

But what’s in it?

Although the full Agreement in Principle has not been published yet, the European Commission has published documents giving some details on what is in the trade deal, while the UK has published a summary of the deal.

Among the issues that trade experts and stakeholders had been most concerned about were: rules of origin, customs arrangements, and whether there will be cooperation on security – on things like data and the European Arrest Warrant.

Here’s a broad-stroke glance at what is in the so-called ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’.

www.thejournal.ie/whats-in-the-brexit-d ... 3-Dec2020/

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement: protecting European interests, ensuring fair competition, and continued cooperation in areas of mutual interest

Brussels, 24 December 2020

After intensive negotiations, the European Commission has reached today an agreement with the United Kingdom on the terms of its future cooperation with the European Union.
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen said: “It was worth fighting for this deal because we now have a fair and balanced agreement with the UK, which will protect our European interests, ensure fair competition, and provide much needed predictability for our fishing communities. Finally, we can leave Brexit behind us and look to the future. Europe is now moving on.”

The European Commission's Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, said: “We have now come to the end of a very intensive four-year period, particularly over the past nine months, during which we negotiated the UK's orderly withdrawal from the EU and a brand new partnership, which we have finally agreed today. The protection of our interests has been front and centre throughout these negotiations and I am pleased that we have managed to do so. It is now for the European Parliament and the Council to have their say on this agreement.”

The draft Trade and Cooperation Agreement

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... 531_EN.pdf

OA260 wrote:

The draft Trade and Cooperation Agreement

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... 531_EN.pdf

Nice summery from the EU, good find OA260.

This caught my eye: "UK has agreed to withdraw the contentious clauses of the UK Internal Market Bill, and will not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill." as expected. Britain has split thanks to Brexit. A great win for our Brexiteers.

And:

"the Commission proposes to apply the Agreement on a provisional basis, for a limited period of time until 28 February 2021." so we have 2 months of uncertainty, but I do not think anyone would object to this. Even though, we never know what Hungary or Poland might do.

And a nice summery of what Brexit means even with this agreement in place:

Big changes coming: getting ready 1 January 2021

Even with the new EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement in place, there will be big changes on 1 January 2021.
On that date, the UK will leave the EU Single Market and Customs Union, as well as all EU policies and international agreements. The free movement of persons, goods, services and capital between the UK and the EU will end.

The EU and the UK will form two separate markets; two distinct regulatory and legal spaces. This will create barriers to trade in goods and services and to cross-border mobility and exchanges that do not exist today – in both directions.

This EU overview is also a good summary.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/eu-uk_trade_and_cooperation_agreement-a_new_relationship_with_big_changes-overview_of_consequences_and_benefits.pdf

Dutchy wrote:

This caught my eye: "UK has agreed to withdraw the contentious clauses of the UK Internal Market Bill, and will not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill." as expected. Britain has split thanks to Brexit. A great win for our Brexiteers.

Nope more like common sense was applied at the Joint committee in relation to the NIP, and both side can use Article 16 if any disputes arise in the future,

The Joint Committee adopted five decisions today, namely:

Four decisions on the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland (a decision on the practical arrangements for Union presence in Northern Ireland, a decision on goods “not at risk” of entering the EU's Single Market, a decision on the exemption of agricultural and fish subsidies from State aid rules, and a decision to correct some errors and omissions in Annex 2 of the Protocol);

Article 16
Safeguards


If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be
restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to
remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
functioning of this Protocol.

UK command paper on NIP

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... otocol.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sidies.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_risk.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ssions.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... otocol.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ations.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... oducts.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... cation.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... icines.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... otocol.pdf

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

This caught my eye: "UK has agreed to withdraw the contentious clauses of the UK Internal Market Bill, and will not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill." as expected. Britain has split thanks to Brexit. A great win for our Brexiteers.

Nope more like common sense was applied at the Joint committee in relation to the NIP, and both side can use Article 16 if any disputes arise in the future,

Yes, it is common sense to prevent the Troubles from returning, that's why the EU insisted on it in the WA. You, on the other hand, wanted the WA torn up and just walk away. Now the UK agreed, in essence: one country, two systems.
But I am sure you will find a way to frame it otherwise.

LJ wrote:

This EU overview is also a good summary.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/eu-uk_trade_and_cooperation_agreement-a_new_relationship_with_big_changes-overview_of_consequences_and_benefits.pdf

In this text I see a few things that seems to be undersoot different of the UK government and EU.

Example;

UK service suppliers no longer benefit from the
‘country-of-origin’ approach or ‘passporting’
concept (e.g. for financial services), which enable
automatic access to the entire EU Single Market
‣ No more automatic recognition of professional
qualifications: Doctors, nurses, dentists,
pharmacists, vets, engineers or architects must
have their qualifications recognised in each Member
State they wish to practice

Did not Boris say the oposite?

What am I missing here?

I felt that UK presented the deal as a tool to fool the stupid EU and EU was much low key.

Olle - shhhh! Boris is working to pass the bill now.

What is the probability someone in the UK finds a section in the 2,000 pages of text with which he/she can slam Boris into the ground?

Well. A good job by both parties. Overall, a decent deal for both sides. No one got all they wanted and no one had to swallow a poison pill. Free trade is front and centre and red tape is minimal. Both sides should sit back and enjoy a large single malt.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

This caught my eye: "UK has agreed to withdraw the contentious clauses of the UK Internal Market Bill, and will not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill." as expected. Britain has split thanks to Brexit. A great win for our Brexiteers.

Nope more like common sense was applied at the Joint committee in relation to the NIP, and both side can use Article 16 if any disputes arise in the future,

Yes, it is common sense to prevent the Troubles from returning, that's why the EU insisted on it in the WA. You, on the other hand, wanted the WA torn up and just walk away. Now the UK agreed, in essence: one country, two systems.
But I am sure you will find a way to frame it otherwise.

I still prefer the WA to be rescinded

AeroVega wrote:

A101 wrote:

But if what you are saying is correct and pending the outcome of the FTA, the Tories have just lost my vote if they capitulate to the EU.

But look on the bright side. Brexit has given the UK control of its own laws, control of immigration, the freedom to strike trade deals on its own terms, and a free trade deal with the EU without having to pay into the EU budget.

If I were Norway I would wonder what the point of paying into the EU budget is if the UK can get the same deal without paying into it.

Well except for services. And Schengen and freedom of movement (I know some see this as a negative, but being able to hire talent from a whole continent, and for Norwegian people having access to all these countries for work, without hassle, is in my opinion an economic benefit).

And fish. I have heard that Norway doesn't want to join the EU mainly because it doesn't want to share its fish. From what I can find it shares its fish anyway, but maybe to a smaller extent than what the UK just agreed, I don't know.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Nope more like common sense was applied at the Joint committee in relation to the NIP, and both side can use Article 16 if any disputes arise in the future,

Yes, it is common sense to prevent the Troubles from returning, that's why the EU insisted on it in the WA. You, on the other hand, wanted the WA torn up and just walk away. Now the UK agreed, in essence: one country, two systems.
But I am sure you will find a way to frame it otherwise.

I still prefer the WA to be rescinded

Some in Northern Ireland also want the the conflict back. The rest of the world is fortunately in agreement that this would be completely irresponsible.

olle wrote:

I put my bet on that there is too much invested in the 'conservative EU UK war'
. Within 12 month uk government will request tobrenogiatevthis deal.

This is armistace 1918 not end of wars.

Sensible people in government (and I include BoJo and the main ministers in that list, for once) won't want to renegotiate anything for a very long time, after all this mess. The ERG/Brextremists will cry foul much sooner, maybe even right away.

The EU will not want to renegotiate anything either, so the only way for negotiations to open would be for the UK to threaten to break the current deal. Then what ? Now that this deal is the new norm, anything the UK wants more will have to be offset by something else. The problem being that the EU will probably not want anything more from the UK, thus has no reason to give anything either.

The "toddler threat" of going for no deal didn't work this time, it will work even less in the future, unless the government really prepares for it for a couple of years beforehand. As it is the UK isn't even ready for leaving the customs union, even though that was decided years ago, under May.

Brexit deal has 'failed' fishermen and left farmers with 'little reason to celebrate'

The Irish Fishermen's Organisation say the Brexit agreement concluded today has "failed" Irish fishermen.

Under the agreement, Ireland will have to give back 25% of fish we catch in UK waters compared to the 80% originally sought by the UK.

But the Killybegs Fishermen's association said that the 25% figure was not an improvement on what was spoken about last week and which had been unacceptable to them.

Chief executive of the organisation Sean O'Donoghue said the mackerel market would be devastated.

"In spite of a seismic effort to redress the imbalance of the proposed deal in recent days, not enough has changed and our highly-developed mackerel fishery stands to lose out dramatically," said Mr O'Donoghue.

"While the full detail of the text is not yet available, it will require very close examination and analysis.

Make no mistake - we will be seeking compensation from our EU colleagues to put right this grievous wrong.

www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40196673.html?type=amp

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, it is common sense to prevent the Troubles from returning, that's why the EU insisted on it in the WA. You, on the other hand, wanted the WA torn up and just walk away. Now the UK agreed, in essence: one country, two systems.
But I am sure you will find a way to frame it otherwise.

I still prefer the WA to be rescinded

Some in Northern Ireland also want the the conflict back. The rest of the world is fortunately in agreement that this would be completely irresponsible.

No one wants to see the the troubles return, but I also think the WA/NIP was too higher price to get a trade agreement with the EU

I haven’t read it yet but UKGov summary of agreement between EU/UK

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... RY_PDF.pdf

Remains to be seen as o what for th actual bill before the House, just some out takes from the summary


Reasonable aspects of the agreement
81.The Agreement’s provisions in this area, implementing commitments made in the 2019 Political Declaration, were the subject of considerable controversy during the negotiations. The EU was forced to drop its ambitious demands for dynamic alignment and for the UK to be legally required to maintain equivalent legislative systems to the EU’s in some areas. The system that has been agreed upon does not compromise the UK’s sovereignty in any area, does not involve the European Court of Justice in any way, and is reciprocal. Both sides have the right to set their own laws, subject to the broad constraints of this Agreement in this area as in any other. And both sides have the right, in certain constrained ways, and subject to arbitration, to take countermeasures if they believe they are being damaged by measures taken by the other Party in subsidy policy, labour and social policy, or climate and environment policy. If such measures are used too frequently either side can trigger a review of these provisions and the trade aspects of the Treaty more broadly, aiming to end with a different balance of rights and obligations.

84.The Agreement ensures that each Party will have in place its own independent system of subsidy control and that neither Party is bound to follow the rules of the other. It includes some broad principles which shape the design of both sides’ systems, aiming to ensure that the granting of subsidy does not have detrimental effects on trade between the Parties. It also includes some specific principles on subsidies that are particularly distortive, such as those prohibited by the WTO. The Agreement makes clear that it is for each Party to determine how these principles will be implemented in its domestic law. There is a separate joint declaration that provides non- binding guidance on additional sectors which either side may take into consideration in their respective systems of subsidy control.

91.The Agreement includes reciprocal commitments not to reduce the level of protection for workers or fail to enforce employment rights in a manner that has an effect on trade. This is very much in line with similar “non-regression” clauses in other FTAs and with international norms. The provisions are clear that both Parties have the freedom and ability to make their own decisions on how they regulate - meaning that retained EU law will not have a special place on the UK’s statute books. This Chapter is not subject to the Agreement’s main dispute resolution mechanism but will instead be governed by a bespoke Panel of Experts procedure.


This is bad , UKGov certainly dropped the ball on fisheries

125. The Agreement provides for a significant uplift in quota for UK fishers, equal to 25% of the value the EU catch in UK waters. This is worth £146m for the UK fleet phased in over five years. It ends the dependence of the UK fleet on the unfair ‘relative stability’ mechanism enshrined in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, and increases the share of the total catch taken in UK waters taken by UK vessels to circa two thirds.

I think it should have been far shorter and a ban like Australia on Supr trawlers from fishing in our waters

126. New quota arrangements will be phased in over five years to allow the respective fleets time to adapt to the changed opportunities. There will be also be an adjustment period for access to waters which provide stable access for 5 1⁄2 years. For the adjustment period, the Agreement also provides access to a limited part of the UK territorial waters for vessels which have traditionally fished in those areas.

127. Under the framework provided for in this Agreement, the UK will conduct annual fisheries negotiations with the EU alongside negotiations with other coastal States and international organisations regarding Total Allowable Catches for shared stock. These negotiations will also cover access arrangements.

128. The agreement includes arrangements for compensation if a Party decides not to grant access to its waters and dispute settlement, in the event that a Party breaches the obligations. All such measures must be commensurate to the economic and social impact caused by the actions of the other party and are subject to arbitration.

130. The Agreement establishes a Specialised Committee on Fisheries which will provide a forum for the UK and the EU to discuss and cooperate on a range of fisheries matters. These include, but are not limited to: cooperation ahead of annual fisheries consultations, multi-year strategies, data-sharing and monitoring and compliance.

131. The Agreement can be terminated at any point with nine months notice. If the Agreement is terminated, any obligations of the Parties will continue until the end of the year.

132. The Agreement also contains provisions on the Crown Dependencies, which providing those jurisdictions so decide, would allow EU vessels to fish in Crown Dependency waters to levels consistent with historic patterns of fishing while ensuring they can benefit from the goods provisions in the Agreement.

Part 6 – Dispute Settlement and Horizontal Provisions

171. This Agreement includes dispute resolution mechanisms that are appropriate for a relationship between sovereign equals. This means that there is no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. All these mechanisms are fully reciprocal and equally available to both Parties.

172. For certain areas of cooperation there is a process of consultations between the Parties, followed by independent arbitration if there is still disagreement. If the arbitration panel finds that there has been a breach, the Party at fault must either rectify the breach, or agree to provide suitable compensation. If it does not do either, then the other Party can suspend obligations in response to any imbalance identified. Conditions and limitations apply to cross-suspension in some areas.

177. In the event a serious economic, societal or environmental difficulty arises and is likely to persist, the UK or the EU unilaterally may take strictly proportionate and time-limited measures to remedy the situation.


181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice. This overall termination clause is without prejudice to other termination clauses in the Agreement; certain areas of cooperation have bespoke termination clauses, meaning that either Party can decide to cease cooperation in these areas without the whole agreement being terminated.

steveinbc wrote:

Free trade is front and centre and red tape is minimal.

That would depend a lot on your activity. Our Japanese supplier with a plant in the UK (chemicals) is already looking for buyers and will supply us from Japan as soon as they get a serious buyer.

JJJ wrote:

steveinbc wrote:

Free trade is front and centre and red tape is minimal.

That would depend a lot on your activity. Our Japanese supplier with a plant in the UK (chemicals) is already looking for buyers and will supply us from Japan as soon as they get a serious buyer.

Because of Brexit, there is less free trade between EU and UK and more red tape. The spoils of. Brexit.

Regarding dynamic alignment this is replaced with a verification if UK differ to much with a few years between as I understand. I do not see any differense. If UK fail the test the result will be the same. But now it is under a international court and if the international court is too UK influenced EU will further or later walk away.

A101 wrote:

Remains to be seen as o what for th actual bill before the House, just some out takes from the summary


Reasonable aspects of the agreement
81.The Agreement’s provisions in this area, implementing commitments made in the 2019 Political Declaration, were the subject of considerable controversy during the negotiations. The EU was forced to drop its ambitious demands for dynamic alignment and for the UK to be legally required to maintain equivalent legislative systems to the EU’s in some areas. The system that has been agreed upon does not compromise the UK’s sovereignty in any area, does not involve the European Court of Justice in any way, and is reciprocal. Both sides have the right to set their own laws, subject to the broad constraints of this Agreement in this area as in any other. And both sides have the right, in certain constrained ways, and subject to arbitration, to take countermeasures if they believe they are being damaged by measures taken by the other Party in subsidy policy, labour and social policy, or climate and environment policy. If such measures are used too frequently either side can trigger a review of these provisions and the trade aspects of the Treaty more broadly, aiming to end with a different balance of rights and obligations.

84.The Agreement ensures that each Party will have in place its own independent system of subsidy control and that neither Party is bound to follow the rules of the other. It includes some broad principles which shape the design of both sides’ systems, aiming to ensure that the granting of subsidy does not have detrimental effects on trade between the Parties. It also includes some specific principles on subsidies that are particularly distortive, such as those prohibited by the WTO. The Agreement makes clear that it is for each Party to determine how these principles will be implemented in its domestic law. There is a separate joint declaration that provides non- binding guidance on additional sectors which either side may take into consideration in their respective systems of subsidy control.

91.The Agreement includes reciprocal commitments not to reduce the level of protection for workers or fail to enforce employment rights in a manner that has an effect on trade. This is very much in line with similar “non-regression” clauses in other FTAs and with international norms. The provisions are clear that both Parties have the freedom and ability to make their own decisions on how they regulate - meaning that retained EU law will not have a special place on the UK’s statute books. This Chapter is not subject to the Agreement’s main dispute resolution mechanism but will instead be governed by a bespoke Panel of Experts procedure.


This is bad , UKGov certainly dropped the ball on fisheries

125. The Agreement provides for a significant uplift in quota for UK fishers, equal to 25% of the value the EU catch in UK waters. This is worth £146m for the UK fleet phased in over five years. It ends the dependence of the UK fleet on the unfair ‘relative stability’ mechanism enshrined in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, and increases the share of the total catch taken in UK waters taken by UK vessels to circa two thirds.

I think it should have been far shorter and a ban like Australia on Supr trawlers from fishing in our waters

126. New quota arrangements will be phased in over five years to allow the respective fleets time to adapt to the changed opportunities. There will be also be an adjustment period for access to waters which provide stable access for 5 1⁄2 years. For the adjustment period, the Agreement also provides access to a limited part of the UK territorial waters for vessels which have traditionally fished in those areas.

127. Under the framework provided for in this Agreement, the UK will conduct annual fisheries negotiations with the EU alongside negotiations with other coastal States and international organisations regarding Total Allowable Catches for shared stock. These negotiations will also cover access arrangements.

128. The agreement includes arrangements for compensation if a Party decides not to grant access to its waters and dispute settlement, in the event that a Party breaches the obligations. All such measures must be commensurate to the economic and social impact caused by the actions of the other party and are subject to arbitration.

130. The Agreement establishes a Specialised Committee on Fisheries which will provide a forum for the UK and the EU to discuss and cooperate on a range of fisheries matters. These include, but are not limited to: cooperation ahead of annual fisheries consultations, multi-year strategies, data-sharing and monitoring and compliance.

131. The Agreement can be terminated at any point with nine months notice. If the Agreement is terminated, any obligations of the Parties will continue until the end of the year.

132. The Agreement also contains provisions on the Crown Dependencies, which providing those jurisdictions so decide, would allow EU vessels to fish in Crown Dependency waters to levels consistent with historic patterns of fishing while ensuring they can benefit from the goods provisions in the Agreement.

Part 6 – Dispute Settlement and Horizontal Provisions

171. This Agreement includes dispute resolution mechanisms that are appropriate for a relationship between sovereign equals. This means that there is no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. All these mechanisms are fully reciprocal and equally available to both Parties.

172. For certain areas of cooperation there is a process of consultations between the Parties, followed by independent arbitration if there is still disagreement. If the arbitration panel finds that there has been a breach, the Party at fault must either rectify the breach, or agree to provide suitable compensation. If it does not do either, then the other Party can suspend obligations in response to any imbalance identified. Conditions and limitations apply to cross-suspension in some areas.

177. In the event a serious economic, societal or environmental difficulty arises and is likely to persist, the UK or the EU unilaterally may take strictly proportionate and time-limited measures to remedy the situation.


181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice. This overall termination clause is without prejudice to other termination clauses in the Agreement; certain areas of cooperation have bespoke termination clauses, meaning that either Party can decide to cease cooperation in these areas without the whole agreement being terminated.

The last part with the termination is perfectly written for both EU and UK audience UK will say yhat areas that UK do not like will be terminated while keeping the rest. EU will use this the other way saying that if UK cancel one part UK terminates the rest. We seems to have the same situation like EU swiss where switzerland can cancel peace by peace and in next moment they face cancelled relations with EU.

Until when will France requirre negative covid test for drivers enter EU. How will this affect supply chains in UK and exports from UK?

After 1 of jan UK now is third country will this have additional impact?

How is UK automotive industry doing righg now? Will they be able to produce without stop duting q1 and q2?

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

Remains to be seen as o what for th actual bill before the House, just some out takes from the summary


Reasonable aspects of the agreement
81.The Agreement’s provisions in this area, implementing commitments made in the 2019 Political Declaration, were the subject of considerable controversy during the negotiations. The EU was forced to drop its ambitious demands for dynamic alignment and for the UK to be legally required to maintain equivalent legislative systems to the EU’s in some areas. The system that has been agreed upon does not compromise the UK’s sovereignty in any area, does not involve the European Court of Justice in any way, and is reciprocal. Both sides have the right to set their own laws, subject to the broad constraints of this Agreement in this area as in any other. And both sides have the right, in certain constrained ways, and subject to arbitration, to take countermeasures if they believe they are being damaged by measures taken by the other Party in subsidy policy, labour and social policy, or climate and environment policy. If such measures are used too frequently either side can trigger a review of these provisions and the trade aspects of the Treaty more broadly, aiming to end with a different balance of rights and obligations.

84.The Agreement ensures that each Party will have in place its own independent system of subsidy control and that neither Party is bound to follow the rules of the other. It includes some broad principles which shape the design of both sides’ systems, aiming to ensure that the granting of subsidy does not have detrimental effects on trade between the Parties. It also includes some specific principles on subsidies that are particularly distortive, such as those prohibited by the WTO. The Agreement makes clear that it is for each Party to determine how these principles will be implemented in its domestic law. There is a separate joint declaration that provides non- binding guidance on additional sectors which either side may take into consideration in their respective systems of subsidy control.

91.The Agreement includes reciprocal commitments not to reduce the level of protection for workers or fail to enforce employment rights in a manner that has an effect on trade. This is very much in line with similar “non-regression” clauses in other FTAs and with international norms. The provisions are clear that both Parties have the freedom and ability to make their own decisions on how they regulate - meaning that retained EU law will not have a special place on the UK’s statute books. This Chapter is not subject to the Agreement’s main dispute resolution mechanism but will instead be governed by a bespoke Panel of Experts procedure.


This is bad , UKGov certainly dropped the ball on fisheries

125. The Agreement provides for a significant uplift in quota for UK fishers, equal to 25% of the value the EU catch in UK waters. This is worth £146m for the UK fleet phased in over five years. It ends the dependence of the UK fleet on the unfair ‘relative stability’ mechanism enshrined in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, and increases the share of the total catch taken in UK waters taken by UK vessels to circa two thirds.

I think it should have been far shorter and a ban like Australia on Supr trawlers from fishing in our waters

126. New quota arrangements will be phased in over five years to allow the respective fleets time to adapt to the changed opportunities. There will be also be an adjustment period for access to waters which provide stable access for 5 1⁄2 years. For the adjustment period, the Agreement also provides access to a limited part of the UK territorial waters for vessels which have traditionally fished in those areas.

127. Under the framework provided for in this Agreement, the UK will conduct annual fisheries negotiations with the EU alongside negotiations with other coastal States and international organisations regarding Total Allowable Catches for shared stock. These negotiations will also cover access arrangements.

128. The agreement includes arrangements for compensation if a Party decides not to grant access to its waters and dispute settlement, in the event that a Party breaches the obligations. All such measures must be commensurate to the economic and social impact caused by the actions of the other party and are subject to arbitration.

130. The Agreement establishes a Specialised Committee on Fisheries which will provide a forum for the UK and the EU to discuss and cooperate on a range of fisheries matters. These include, but are not limited to: cooperation ahead of annual fisheries consultations, multi-year strategies, data-sharing and monitoring and compliance.

131. The Agreement can be terminated at any point with nine months notice. If the Agreement is terminated, any obligations of the Parties will continue until the end of the year.

132. The Agreement also contains provisions on the Crown Dependencies, which providing those jurisdictions so decide, would allow EU vessels to fish in Crown Dependency waters to levels consistent with historic patterns of fishing while ensuring they can benefit from the goods provisions in the Agreement.

Part 6 – Dispute Settlement and Horizontal Provisions

171. This Agreement includes dispute resolution mechanisms that are appropriate for a relationship between sovereign equals. This means that there is no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. All these mechanisms are fully reciprocal and equally available to both Parties.

172. For certain areas of cooperation there is a process of consultations between the Parties, followed by independent arbitration if there is still disagreement. If the arbitration panel finds that there has been a breach, the Party at fault must either rectify the breach, or agree to provide suitable compensation. If it does not do either, then the other Party can suspend obligations in response to any imbalance identified. Conditions and limitations apply to cross-suspension in some areas.

177. In the event a serious economic, societal or environmental difficulty arises and is likely to persist, the UK or the EU unilaterally may take strictly proportionate and time-limited measures to remedy the situation.


181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice. This overall termination clause is without prejudice to other termination clauses in the Agreement; certain areas of cooperation have bespoke termination clauses, meaning that either Party can decide to cease cooperation in these areas without the whole agreement being terminated.

The last part with the termination is perfectly written for both EU and UK audience UK will say yhat areas that UK do not like will be terminated while keeping the rest. EU will use this the other way saying that if UK cancel one part UK terminates the rest. We seems to have the same situation like EU swiss where switzerland can cancel peace by peace and in next moment they face cancelled relations with EU.

I find it interesting that the EU allowed a number of termination agreements littered within the agreement if the summary is correct, the UK can literally walk away from what has been agreed without compromising the entire agreement.

Actually shocked if the EU allowed that in.

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

Remains to be seen as o what for th actual bill before the House, just some out takes from the summary


Reasonable aspects of the agreement
81.The Agreement’s provisions in this area, implementing commitments made in the 2019 Political Declaration, were the subject of considerable controversy during the negotiations. The EU was forced to drop its ambitious demands for dynamic alignment and for the UK to be legally required to maintain equivalent legislative systems to the EU’s in some areas. The system that has been agreed upon does not compromise the UK’s sovereignty in any area, does not involve the European Court of Justice in any way, and is reciprocal. Both sides have the right to set their own laws, subject to the broad constraints of this Agreement in this area as in any other. And both sides have the right, in certain constrained ways, and subject to arbitration, to take countermeasures if they believe they are being damaged by measures taken by the other Party in subsidy policy, labour and social policy, or climate and environment policy. If such measures are used too frequently either side can trigger a review of these provisions and the trade aspects of the Treaty more broadly, aiming to end with a different balance of rights and obligations.

84.The Agreement ensures that each Party will have in place its own independent system of subsidy control and that neither Party is bound to follow the rules of the other. It includes some broad principles which shape the design of both sides’ systems, aiming to ensure that the granting of subsidy does not have detrimental effects on trade between the Parties. It also includes some specific principles on subsidies that are particularly distortive, such as those prohibited by the WTO. The Agreement makes clear that it is for each Party to determine how these principles will be implemented in its domestic law. There is a separate joint declaration that provides non- binding guidance on additional sectors which either side may take into consideration in their respective systems of subsidy control.

91.The Agreement includes reciprocal commitments not to reduce the level of protection for workers or fail to enforce employment rights in a manner that has an effect on trade. This is very much in line with similar “non-regression” clauses in other FTAs and with international norms. The provisions are clear that both Parties have the freedom and ability to make their own decisions on how they regulate - meaning that retained EU law will not have a special place on the UK’s statute books. This Chapter is not subject to the Agreement’s main dispute resolution mechanism but will instead be governed by a bespoke Panel of Experts procedure.


This is bad , UKGov certainly dropped the ball on fisheries

125. The Agreement provides for a significant uplift in quota for UK fishers, equal to 25% of the value the EU catch in UK waters. This is worth £146m for the UK fleet phased in over five years. It ends the dependence of the UK fleet on the unfair ‘relative stability’ mechanism enshrined in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, and increases the share of the total catch taken in UK waters taken by UK vessels to circa two thirds.

I think it should have been far shorter and a ban like Australia on Supr trawlers from fishing in our waters

126. New quota arrangements will be phased in over five years to allow the respective fleets time to adapt to the changed opportunities. There will be also be an adjustment period for access to waters which provide stable access for 5 1⁄2 years. For the adjustment period, the Agreement also provides access to a limited part of the UK territorial waters for vessels which have traditionally fished in those areas.

127. Under the framework provided for in this Agreement, the UK will conduct annual fisheries negotiations with the EU alongside negotiations with other coastal States and international organisations regarding Total Allowable Catches for shared stock. These negotiations will also cover access arrangements.

128. The agreement includes arrangements for compensation if a Party decides not to grant access to its waters and dispute settlement, in the event that a Party breaches the obligations. All such measures must be commensurate to the economic and social impact caused by the actions of the other party and are subject to arbitration.

130. The Agreement establishes a Specialised Committee on Fisheries which will provide a forum for the UK and the EU to discuss and cooperate on a range of fisheries matters. These include, but are not limited to: cooperation ahead of annual fisheries consultations, multi-year strategies, data-sharing and monitoring and compliance.

131. The Agreement can be terminated at any point with nine months notice. If the Agreement is terminated, any obligations of the Parties will continue until the end of the year.

132. The Agreement also contains provisions on the Crown Dependencies, which providing those jurisdictions so decide, would allow EU vessels to fish in Crown Dependency waters to levels consistent with historic patterns of fishing while ensuring they can benefit from the goods provisions in the Agreement.

Part 6 – Dispute Settlement and Horizontal Provisions

171. This Agreement includes dispute resolution mechanisms that are appropriate for a relationship between sovereign equals. This means that there is no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. All these mechanisms are fully reciprocal and equally available to both Parties.

172. For certain areas of cooperation there is a process of consultations between the Parties, followed by independent arbitration if there is still disagreement. If the arbitration panel finds that there has been a breach, the Party at fault must either rectify the breach, or agree to provide suitable compensation. If it does not do either, then the other Party can suspend obligations in response to any imbalance identified. Conditions and limitations apply to cross-suspension in some areas.

177. In the event a serious economic, societal or environmental difficulty arises and is likely to persist, the UK or the EU unilaterally may take strictly proportionate and time-limited measures to remedy the situation.


181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice. This overall termination clause is without prejudice to other termination clauses in the Agreement; certain areas of cooperation have bespoke termination clauses, meaning that either Party can decide to cease cooperation in these areas without the whole agreement being terminated.

The last part with the termination is perfectly written for both EU and UK audience UK will say yhat areas that UK do not like will be terminated while keeping the rest. EU will use this the other way saying that if UK cancel one part UK terminates the rest. We seems to have the same situation like EU swiss where switzerland can cancel peace by peace and in next moment they face cancelled relations with EU.

I find it interesting that the EU allowed a number of termination agreements littered within the agreement if the summary is correct, the UK can literally walk away from what has been agreed without compromising the entire agreement.

Actually shocked if the EU allowed that in.

This is very similar to EU agreement with swiss and its very messy. Swiss for example voted for terminating free movement and EU told that then they cancel the other agreements.

For thos EU did not wanted the same mess with UK but it seems that in order to sell it to Brexiteers it was requirred.

UK today is in a very similar situation like swiss.

Swiss has the negotiation card to close the transport routes creating huge problems.

UK has still financial services before they have mirrors inside EU and fishing.

Fishing is a card election years in France.

olle wrote:

UK service suppliers no longer benefit from the
‘country-of-origin’ approach or ‘passporting’
concept (e.g. for financial services), which enable
automatic access to the entire EU Single Market
‣ No more automatic recognition of professional
qualifications: Doctors, nurses, dentists,
pharmacists, vets, engineers or architects must
have their qualifications recognised in each Member
State they wish to practice

Did not Boris say the oposite?

What am I missing here?

You're missing the emphasis both the EU document as Boris JOhnson/UKGov document are right. However, the EU document focusses on the general rule whereas Boris Johnson/UKGov document highlight the exemptions and the fact that though qualifications are not recognised, it doesn't mean one cannot act in a certain profession (as also mentioned in the EU document where it states that qualifications can be recognized by Member States).. Both the EU and UK need to sell this deal for its audience and thus highlight what they need to highlight in order to sell the deal to their audience. The trick is to look for what's not highlighted/communicated or what's missing as that's where the problems start. Your example shows that. Boris Johnson/UKGov document highlight that UK professionals can work in the EU (which is correct as they can when agreed by a Memver State), whereas the EU document highlights the fact that professionals loose their qualifications but a Member State can recognize it. Therefore, one should always read the legal text (which most people will never do).

olle wrote:

Regarding dynamic alignment this is replaced with a verification if UK differ to much with a few years between as I understand. I do not see any differense. If UK fail the test the result will be the same. But now it is under a international court and if the international court is too UK influenced EU will further or later walk away.

I think it might even be better in a way, because the UK can have good ideas, so if they implement those, the EU could follow instead of litigate. If the good idea is akin to lowering environmental standards or something like that, then the EU can litigate/retaliate.

olle wrote:

After 1 of jan UK now is third country will this have additional impact?

Yes, all regulations for enering the EU will be applicable to people coming from the UK. Thus a RT-PCR or rapid test (just at present). Unless of course the EU will put the UK on the exemption list.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/travel-during-coronavirus-pandemic_en

olle wrote:

How is UK automotive industry doing righg now? Will they be able to produce without stop duting q1 and q2?

They got their 0% tariff (when the meet the rules of origin regulation) and the exemption of batteries. However, there is still the issue of extra paperwork and posible delay at the border for parts comiing from the EU.

LJ wrote:

olle wrote:

UK service suppliers no longer benefit from the
‘country-of-origin’ approach or ‘passporting’
concept (e.g. for financial services), which enable
automatic access to the entire EU Single Market
‣ No more automatic recognition of professional
qualifications: Doctors, nurses, dentists,
pharmacists, vets, engineers or architects must
have their qualifications recognised in each Member
State they wish to practice

Did not Boris say the oposite?

What am I missing here?

You're missing the emphasis both the EU document as Boris JOhnson/UKGov document are right. However, the EU document focusses on the general rule whereas Boris Johnson/UKGov document highlight the exemptions and the fact that though qualifications are not recognised, it doesn't mean one cannot act in a certain profession (as also mentioned in the EU document where it states that qualifications can be recognized by Member States).. Both the EU and UK need to sell this deal for its audience and thus highlight what they need to highlight in order to sell the deal to their audience. The trick is to look for what's not highlighted/communicated or what's missing as that's where the problems start. Your example shows that. Boris Johnson/UKGov document highlight that UK professionals can work in the EU (which is correct as they can when agreed by a Memver State), whereas the EU document highlights the fact that professionals loose their qualifications but a Member State can recognize it. Therefore, one should always read the legal text (which most people will never do).

Then we are back to the reality that more or less only engineers has possibility to move if the specialist is not a recognized researcher from cambridge. Exactly like it used to be until 1973.

For some reason until for example sweden had a big shortage of doctors I met frequent refugees doctors driving taxi in Stockholm from South America, Iran syria iraq not for being less experienced often more then swedish doctors but because Sweden did not and still not recognize their diplomas. Now because of shortage swedish health care have special processes to validate their diplomas.

How will this affect UK education industry? No recognized diplomas no Erasmus?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Olle - shhhh! Boris is working to pass the bill now.

This seems to be the official policy of EU right now.

If I do negotiations and noone on the opposite side complains I consider that as a failure.

Brexiteers on this site should analyse why.

As I understand MPs will sign this mid week and MEPs 1-2 weeks after.

It will be interesting to follow both processes special MEPs while they eill have time to actually read and analyse the agreement.

Now brexiteer press start to read the agreement:



Brexit deal betrayal: EU reserves right to 'suspend deal' if UK drifts away from ECHR
THE EU reserves the right to suspend the Brexit deal if the UK drifts away from the European Courts of Human Rights, it has emerged.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13766 ... ration-spt

What's interesting is that this is an open secret. Everybody knows that the EU is letting BoJo cow about his victory, that was always the plan. Meanwhile his red lines have been crossed left and right, and the EU got what it wanted.

olle wrote:

Now brexiteer press start to read the agreement:


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13766 ... ration-spt

I'm shocked!

scbriml wrote:

olle wrote:

Now brexiteer press start to read the agreement:


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13766 ... ration-spt

I'm shocked!

You cannot make it up!

Hahahaha

Klaus wrote:

So in short:

• None of the unicorms promised before the referendum have been delivered (hint: unicorns don't exist, never have and this has been pointed out ad nauseam).

• The deal is pretty exactly what everyone with any contact with reality had predicted all along simply because it is the only possible deal.

• The UK doesn't actually win anything. It's degradation, added cost, added red tape, added impediments and inferior international deals and relations all around, with nothing positive to show for it.

• The EU will have to cope with the self-imposed decline of an important third country but in the grand scheme of things there are much bigger fish to fry.

• As predicted, none of the brexiters' fantasies of damaging, destroying and undermining the EU has come to pass, simply because the EU has no interest in that kind of deal and trust in the UK is at an all-time low.

• Inescapably in real life, the UK has to stick with the standards and rules set by the European Union, now due to Brexit with zero say about them but with an utterly pointless and very expensive added Brexit layer of domestic british red tape all over it.

• Boris Johnson and his posse of unemployable incompetents have at least made their own career goals. That is the only actual win in this and that was the main purpose of the exercise, so they don't care about the scorched earth all across their country.

None of this is any kind of surprise and you can trawl the depths of all tose Brexit threads to find exactly this being predicted from way before the referendum, actually, but the brexiters kept chasing fantasies and delusions which have now crashed into reality like a toy paper boat into a rock.

This is not a failure of Brexit, it is Brexit itself which has always been an inherent failure all along.

Okay, now britons (and scots) will need to come to terms with this catastrophic self-inflicted failure but for us in the European Union life just goes on.

So why are you complaining?

A101 wrote:

125. The Agreement provides for a significant uplift in quota for UK fishers, equal to 25% of the value the EU catch in UK waters. This is worth £146m for the UK fleet phased in over five years. It ends the dependence of the UK fleet on the unfair ‘relative stability’ mechanism enshrined in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, and increases the share of the total catch taken in UK waters taken by UK vessels to circa two thirds.

I don't get how the mechanism works exactly, but in the end UK got bigger quotas. Right ?
Quite logical given fisheries was presumably the strongest UK card thanks to the size of its waters.

What I'd like to understand is what UK will do with more quotas. I think it's no news for anyone on this board that only Scotland make use of its quotas, England was selling more than half of its quota allocation, Wales and NI nearly 100%, to foreign fishers.

I think I've read somewhere UK wanted to force the ffishing rights buyers to employ UK citizens. That's nice to please the brexiteers audience, but given there is no britons to harvest food in th fields, I'm not quite sure where to find some to jump on fishing boats (it's way tougher, and not really better paid)

Call me cynic but it feels like a nice part of newly gained fishing rights will be allocated to the same family who are making a lot of money doing nothing else than trading them.

Sure because now they can sell those fishing rights not only to companies in the EU but have a global tender.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

125. The Agreement provides for a significant uplift in quota for UK fishers, equal to 25% of the value the EU catch in UK waters. This is worth £146m for the UK fleet phased in over five years. It ends the dependence of the UK fleet on the unfair ‘relative stability’ mechanism enshrined in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, and increases the share of the total catch taken in UK waters taken by UK vessels to circa two thirds.

I don't get how the mechanism works exactly, but in the end UK got bigger quotas. Right ?
Quite logical given fisheries was presumably the strongest UK card thanks to the size of its waters.

What I'd like to understand is what UK will do with more quotas. I think it's no news for anyone on this board that only Scotland make use of its quotas, England was selling more than half of its quota allocation, Wales and NI nearly 100%, to foreign fishers.

I think I've read somewhere UK wanted to force the ffishing rights buyers to employ UK citizens. That's nice to please the brexiteers audience, but given there is no britons to harvest food in th fields, I'm not quite sure where to find some to jump on fishing boats (it's way tougher, and not really better paid)

Call me cynic but it feels like a nice part of newly gained fishing rights will be allocated to the same family who are making a lot of money doing nothing else than trading them.

It’s only a summary so its quite literally open to interpretation. I’m not sure how it works either UKGov is saying w control the waters but where does the quotas actually come from?

Is it existing CFP quota for overall catch or is it that the UK decision for catch year in year out and the quota based on it.

As always the devil is in the detail and I’ve yet to see any legal text.


I also think it was blown out of portion by the EU as well, even if the UK got the 80% of catch it did not mean that the UK will catch 80% of it all it meant from what I can understand was that the EU would have a mandatory limit and any additional would have have been negotiated for a £, if that was worth it to EU fishermen I’ll never know not my industry. I just don’t think it wa a bigger deal than the EU made out.

But from the summary the UK caved in to EU demands

olle wrote:

Now brexiteer press start to read the agreement:



Brexit deal betrayal: EU reserves right to 'suspend deal' if UK drifts away from ECHR
THE EU reserves the right to suspend the Brexit deal if the UK drifts away from the European Courts of Human Rights, it has emerged.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13766 ... ration-spt

Hahahahahahaha! UK must guarantee the ECHR protections anyway. At least to the people of Northern Ireland. Thanks to the GFA...

What Boris really had to do, and he obviously did it reluctantly, was to respect EU sovereignty. The UK does not have to respect human rights, it does not have to maintain labor standards, it does not have to maintain food and drug safety et cetera, but the EU does not have to trade with the UK. In the worse case, the UK will slowly diverge from EU standards, and the EU will slowly add tariffs and quit trading with the UK, and borders will increasingly tighten. This is not how the Brexiters sold withdrawal from the EU. I doubt that any UK political party could survive all of that.

olle wrote:

Now brexiteer press start to read the agreement:



Brexit deal betrayal: EU reserves right to 'suspend deal' if UK drifts away from ECHR
THE EU reserves the right to suspend the Brexit deal if the UK drifts away from the European Courts of Human Rights, it has emerged.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13766 ... ration-spt

You mean they start reading the summaries s it was in both the UKGov summary as in the the link to the table summary in one of my previous posts.

BTW I wonder till they realize that GDPR will be required for many parts of the agreement. It's not mentioned explictly but I recall I read the phrase "existing data regulation" (or similar), whch anyone can figure out hwat's meant (GDPR). The UKGov and EU document contain many more of these nice phrases which cover up the fact that the UK signs on on follwoing some EU regulations. To be honest, I really like these kind of texts as it reminds me of what some do at work sometimes. It's really a gift if you can write this kind of texts this way.

flyingturtle wrote:

Hahahahahahaha! UK must guarantee the ECHR protections anyway. At least to the people of Northern Ireland. Thanks to the GFA...

It's also a requirement for getting data for security purpose.

Title XII – Other provisions

157. The Agreement sets out the specific circumstances in which either Party can suspend or terminate this area of cooperation, reflecting the different nature of this Part. For example, in addition to being able to terminate the law enforcement Part for any reason, either Party may suspend cooperation where it considers there are serious and systemic deficiencies in the way the other Party is protecting fundamental rights, the rule of law or data protection.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agreements-reached-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-european-union/summary-explainer

The give away is the part is the explicit mentioning of the termination option in case "there are serious and systemic deficiencies in the way the other Party is protecting fundamental rights, the rule of law or data protection.". This sentence alone means the UK is bound by GDPR and ECHR.

I must admit, if I would be able to draft these kind of texts, I would be much higher in seniority of our company (and earn a lot more). Then again, my manager loves me for translating these types of texts into what it actually says.

I am actually aktive working into a global information Security organisation defining and audits processes and functions for a very big global organisation and privacy laws like GDPR belongs to tris area. I get a feeling that many people into UK government has problem in a short period of time to see connections and consequences in a web of legal texts effecting each other.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

the UK will slowly diverge from EU standards, and the EU will slowly add tariffs and quit trading with the UK, and borders will increasingly tighten. This is not how the Brexiters sold withdrawal from the EU. I doubt that any UK political party could survive all of that.

That works both ways;

What it can actually mean is that the EU may diverge from the current standards which was the cornerstone of the PD in which Barnier was happily to bang on about. What actually seems to have been agreed is a one of non -regression of current standards, now if the EU move on the current standards and the UK deem it to be unacceptable, they too can place additional tariffs on EU goods crossing the border and off course vice versa.

That also could mean that one side moves and the other think it is a good idea and happily move with it or part of it as each have their own interpretations on how it will affect each nation. That is something that happens in most countries across the world now.

In my experience from South America the CE standard is accepted in many parts of the world. Will equal brittish standard bring the same weight?


If no CE will soon be defacto standard in UK anyway.

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-priti ... e-12172609

EU nationals will need a passport to enter the UK from October.

Pity about SISII. I would have thought the EU would have cared more about things like possible abducted children leaving the European Union. But there you go.

A101 wrote:

It’s only a summary so its quite literally open to interpretation. I’m not sure how it works either UKGov is saying w control the waters but where does the quotas actually come from?

Is it existing CFP quota for overall catch or is it that the UK decision for catch year in year out and the quota based on it.

As always the devil is in the detail and I’ve yet to see any legal text.

Oh don't worry I know it's a summary. My interrogation is broader than details, evil or not. My understanding is that on fish UK naturally "won".
But, won to do what exactly ?? What's the plan ?

LJ wrote:

BTW I wonder till they realize that GDPR will be required for many parts of the agreement. It's not mentioned explictly but I recall I read the phrase "existing data regulation" (or similar), whch anyone can figure out hwat's meant (GDPR). The UKGov and EU document contain many more of these nice phrases which cover up the fact that the UK signs on on follwoing some EU regulations.

LJ wrote:

I must admit, if I would be able to draft these kind of texts, I would be much higher in seniority of our company (and earn a lot more). Then again, my manager loves me for translating these types of texts into what it actually says.

Enlightening interpretation !
Will the final legal text specifically mention GDPR or ECHR juridiction though ?
Because it's badly needed, I know certain brexiter able to argue erecting facilities-to-check-goods-moving-between-custom-zone on the ROI-NI border wouldn't be a problem against the GFA because this is not specificaly written. Even if the intent is evident when reading in good faith... [kindly teasing you A101 ]

I searched for the EU version, the contrast is interesting.
For GDPR that's in the same vain then UK

The Agreement also includes a commitment by the EU and UK to uphold high levels of data protection standards. This will be ascertained by adequacy decisions taken unilaterally by each side.

But for ECHR that's more, let's say, direct !

Close and comprehensive police and judicial cooperation with any third country must be accompanied by solid and lasting guarantees for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals. The Agreement therefore commits the EU, its Member States and the UK to continue to protect and give domestic effect to fundamental rights, such as those set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In case of non-adherence by the UK, the EU will be able to suspend cooperation on law enforcement and judicial matters. The Agreement also includes a commitment by the EU and UK to uphold high levels of data protection standards. This will be ascertained by adequacy decisions taken unilaterally by each side.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2531

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-priti-patel-says-new-border-controls-will-make-uk-safer-and-more-secure-12172609

EU nationals will need a passport to enter the UK from October.

Pity about SISII. I would have thought the EU would have cared more about things like possible abducted children leaving the European Union. But there you go.

Interesting, didn't know you could go there without a passport before.

How exactly does the EU have trade with the rest of the world, which does not follow or fall under the ECHR? For example I do believe the EU does have extensive trade with China? Doesn't that mean the ECHR is toothless as a "requirement" for trade?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

How exactly does the EU have trade with the rest of the world, which does not follow or fall under the ECHR? For example I do believe the EU does have extensive trade with China? Doesn't that mean the ECHR is toothless as a "requirement" for trade?

Tugg

And the US and Japan who have the death penalty.

That said, I can’t imagine any UK deviation from the ECHR.