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

You realize we are discussing the terms of the Trade Agreement they agreed on ?

Not the simple hability to trade between country X or Y

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s only a summary so it’s 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 ?

I agree to point, we need to see how the UKGov moves forward on this.

But I hardly see it as a significant win for the UK, what I do not see mentioned is reciprocal rights in EU waters or how the quota was affected

Grizzly410 wrote:

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 ]

That’s the whole point of a treaty or contract; if its not in black and white it does not exist.

The whole point of the Belfast agreement is an enduring security agreement between North & South, it was never meant to be used as a reference about trade across the frontier. Its also a document about respect for the status quo in respecting UK sovereign rule and the peoples determination for consent on whether to stay part of the UK or join the ROI

The ECHR issue is a red herring, most "issues" some people in the UK have with it are in fact not related to it at all. The "problem" are generous British laws, that the ECHR simply upholds. That way Islamist extremists are easily expelled from France when they're foreigners, and lose all appeals at the ECHR, then get refugee status in the UK and are very difficult to get out of there. Clearly nothing to do with the ECHR.

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.

I agree about the cynicism. I heard BoJo offered 100 million pounds to "revitalize" the sector, I can already imagine Tory donors queuing up for that money.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

So in short: [...]

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?

I'm not "complaining". I'm pointing out that the entire Brexit campaign has led to nothing but failure for the UK and none of the grand delusions of the Brexit campaign have been realized.

The treaty merely acknowledges that the UK is and remains dependent on access to the EU, but apart from a bit of cosmetic the only substantial change is that Brexit has robbed the UK of its formerly substantial influence on the same rules it will now continue to have to follow. That's the reality of "Brexit is Brexit".

Grizzly410 wrote:

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 ?

Well, after the 5 1/2 years of transition there can be annual renegotiations about quotas from there, but the EU reserves the right to cut UK fish off from the EU market if there won't be any satisfactory agreement, so the UK would be smart to tread relativelyl lightly there.

A101 wrote:

´That’s the whole point of a treaty or contract; if its not in black and white it does not exist.

Wrong. Both violations of the spirit and of preconditions of a treaty can have similar consequences as outright violating the letter.

What you are presenting here is a ficitious view of such agreements which simply doesn't hold up in real life.

The whole point of the Belfast agreement is an enduring security agreement between North & South, it was never meant to be used as a reference about trade across the frontier.

You keep claiming that, but the point has never been whether the GFA is a "reference" for trade but instead unrestricted trade is a necessity for satisfying it.

That is exactly the reason why there is now an UK-internal border across the Irish Sea, because there is no other option for Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK erecting new trade barriers which would violate the GFA if NI wasn't excepted from those.

Its also a document about respect for the status quo in respecting UK sovereign rule and the peoples determination for consent on whether to stay part of the UK or join the ROI

It stipulates that the UK consents to not abuse its control of NI in contravention of the GFA, and said intra-UK border across the Irish Sea is the only way to satisfy the GFA and still have the kind of Brexit the Tories in Westminster are dead-set to pursue.

Grizzly410 wrote:

The treaty merely acknowledges that the UK is and remains dependent on access to the EU, but apart from a bit of cosmetic the only substantial change is that Brexit has robbed the UK of its formerly substantial influence on the same rules it will now continue to have to follow. That's the reality of "Brexit is Brexit".

Agree that the UK has lost influence at the table on making EU rules irrespective if we agreed with them or not, but the whole point of Brexit is we do not have to follow EU rules in perpetuity, and so far from what I am reading that is the case.

From what I am reading the UK now has the freedom to either continue with alignment in the future or not, if trade with the EU continues to drop in the future and it is possibly in our interest not move the same way as the EU, we have freedom to do so. Irrespective of zero tariff/quota it’s not a guarantee that the EU will continue its market share. I would also suggest that if in the future the EU does place punitive tariffs on UK imports the UK will just follow suit.

I think the biggest win’s the UK had was no dynamic alignment and no role for the ECJ in dispute settlement in the future for zero tariff/quota, but that was at the expense of fisherman considering that the increase to UK is only worth a 45.5m€ over what the EU offered a big climb down from the opening offer of 130m€ to the EU. Macron got his win on fishing.

Until I see some legal text I’m reserving judgement on the whole deal

What I am waiting to see is Sturgeons views on the trade deal and how it affects her independence stance, that’s an interesting one to watch

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

´That’s the whole point of a treaty or contract; if its not in black and white it does not exist.

Wrong. Both violations of the spirit and of preconditions of a treaty can have similar consequences as outright violating the letter.
What you are presenting here is a ficitious view of such agreements which simply doesn't hold up in real life.

Really the High Court of Northern Ireland begs to differ on whether a customs border violates the Belfast agreement when it said that is a matter of political not legal issues.

There are no preconditions to the Belfast agreement only the treaty itself are the legal conditions which have to be satisfied

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

The whole point of the Belfast agreement is an enduring security agreement between North & South, it was never meant to be used as a reference about trade across the frontier.

You keep claiming that, but the point has never been whether the GFA is a "reference" for trade but instead unrestricted trade is a necessity for satisfying it.

Customs checks at the border was not about restricting trade and you know it; the customs border was about the myth of protecting the single market even though it is in UK law that both the ROI/UK have the same standards. Brussels politicised the border issue just like the issue of infrastructure on the border even though there is currently ANPR camera at the border which do not violate the Belfast Agreement.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s also a document about respect for the status quo in respecting UK sovereign rule and the people’s determination for consent on whether to stay part of the UK or join the ROI

It stipulates that the UK consents to not abuse its control of NI in contravention of the GFA, and said intra-UK border across the Irish Sea is the only way to satisfy the GFA and still have the kind of Brexit the Tories in Westminster are dead-set to pursue.

Really the Irish sea border already contravenes the Belfast agreement in-respects how NI interreacts with UK sovereign constitutional law unto NI with Acts of the Union 1800 by having two separate customs territories laws applicable which goes against Article Six & Eight within the Acts of the Union 1800

Also, now that the UK has been removed from the supremacy of EU law and Judiciary, retained EU law is still the supreme law within NI contrary to Acts of the Union 1800, hence why May originally wanted NI border issues to be negotiated within the EU/UK FTA

From the Belfast agreement;

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

Acts of the Union 1800;
Article Sixth.

That it be the sixth article of union, that his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and one, be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the united kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have same the privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.

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

The EU doesn't have an FTA with China, and hence no negotiations to apply leverage.While the EU is more committed to he inclusion of human rights regulations in trade agreements, the US and Canada do that as well, and trade with China too.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ ... S_BRI(2019)637975_EN.pdf

Best regards
Thomas

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.

If EU can cut out UK fishing, has UK fishing actually gained anything?

A good pleasant read

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the ... acked-down

I guess we will never know the truth if Barnier lost the confidence from Brussels

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -v6zx0xvxm

agill wrote:

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.

Most European countries have both a passport and national identity cards. As of October 2021 the latter cannot be used for travel to the UK (as is the case for all third countries except Turkey).

One of my favoourite blog sites point to the fact that the UK traded the EU in for the UN. So much for taking back control.

https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/trade/the-deal-first-thoughts/
https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-tea-breaks-over/

For those who have nothing to do today, here a link to the agreement. Hopefully the MPs read (and understand) the full 1,256 pages.

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-857-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF

agill wrote:

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.

You could travel on a national ID card before . Now you will need a proper passport .

OA260 wrote:

agill wrote:

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.

You could travel on a national ID card before . Now you will need a proper passport .

Yes I understand that. Just didn't know that you could do that when traveling to the uk. Though it was a schengen thing.

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

Theyr'e not actually going to claim us they didn't figure out the European Court of Justice (officially the Court of Justice of the European Union) in Luxembourg is NOT the same as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, do they???

The ECHR is the Court of the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the European (Union) Council, the regular meeting of all 27 heads of State/Government of the EU) and rules on any claimed violations of political rights and human rights of individuals present on the territory of all countries beween Keflavik and Vladivostok, to the exception of Belorussia.

ECHR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... man_Rights
ECJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

Seems the ouright hatred for anything 'European' has prevented them from actually gaining basic knowledge and a good understanding of all the different organisations, institutions and arrangements they collectively called 'Europe', not understanding that ther are often not the same, not all similar to the EU and not all covered with Brexit! .

Dutchy wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I disagree - there is a middle ground. The UK could have been level-headed about it and dealt with the situation maturely: triggered article 50, negotiated in good faith a Withdrawal Agreement, left the EU with a reasonably length transition period so that businesses could adapt and negotiated in good faith to become part of EFTA.

There is no middle ground anymore. Brexit is hi-jacked, the conservative party is hi-jacked, heck British politics is hi-jacked.

I agree - now it is, but it didn't have to be. There's no doubt that the enormous amount of fraud in the vote leave campaign (rivaled only in recent times by the lads in lasses in charge of 737MAX certification at Boeing) helped to sway the final result of the referendum. And that a substantial portion of the voting base was completely clueless about the consequences of leaving. But even so, it didn't have to be a complete disaster.

Dutchy wrote:

Brexit is the result of being lied to for 40 years, the result of a class society that doesn't give a damn about the lower classes, the result of putting power in the hands of the wrong people.

and English Nationalism.

Dutchy wrote:

The anger was focused on Brexit, now that the UK has left the union, and the people see - except some Brexitremists - that they have been lied to yet again, the anger will be directed to something else in due time. The referendum was never about the EU, the EU was never the problem. So leaving the EU can't be the solution.

Well said.

Dutchy wrote:

Good luck my British friends, I wish you all the best for Britain.

Likewise and I hope that my Scottish friends will be successful on their journey to regaining independence.

ElPistolero wrote:

That assumes that pragmatism and reason would overrule an inherently emotional decision. It can’t.

That's actually a really good point.

ElPistolero wrote:

- Hannan, Farage etc praised the Switzerland’s and Norway’s to the high heavens pre-referendum. Now they think they’re EU vassal states. That’s how much the goal post has shifted on the Brexit side. It’s not rational.

The good thing about this is that these same arguments can be used in Scotland's campaign for independence. Of course we both know that the Brexiteers will shift the goalposts again.

ElPistolero wrote:

- Brexiteers are animated by a particularly aggressive strain of English exceptionalism that has left them convinced that they are superior to “undemocratic”, “non-sovereign”, “vassal states” that British MPs have likened to Soviets and Nazis. Unsurprisingly the EU countries and their citizens take exception and aren’t particularly inclined to be nice about it anymore.

Well said.

A101 wrote:

From what I am reading the UK now has the freedom to either continue with alignment in the future or not, if trade with the EU continues to drop in the future and it is possibly in our interest not move the same way as the EU, we have freedom to do so. Irrespective of zero tariff/quota it’s not a guarantee that the EU will continue its market share.

That's also the reading of D. Davis, who said sovereignty lays in the fact the UK could decided to deviate, but that it likely won't do (much) anytime soon, given the importance of the Single Market to the British economy as well as the consequences of any significant deviation by the UK to the very important zero tariff/zero quota arrangement.

Which leads to the question you've also touched on briefly: as long as the EU's importance to the UK stays what it is, it makes little sense for the UK to deviate much from the EU rules, so the right that seems so precious to Brexiteers is not going to be used significantly anytime soon and is thus largely theoretical and symbolic only. Yet in return for an illusive right, the UK looses the practical right to hold the pen for any future EU legislation which the UK will mirror for the forseable future anyway, a degradation to vassalage status which is very real and almost immediate!
You can rest assured that it won't take very long before the first major issue arrises with the UK having to choose whether it will follow a new EU rule which it doesn't like at all but can no longer block at the EU level any longer. So it will soon and often have to make the binary choice to just swallow the EU rule anyway by rolling it over in a British copy-paste law or (risk) ending this whole agreement with the EU for just 12 months later! That's exactly the situation Switzerland is in, where MPs in Bern can discuss for hours all the merrits and risks with each EU directive send over to them, but ultimately are always finding that they push the green button because not doing so triggers the guillotine clause in their bilateral and kills the Swiss economy on the spot.

Knowing that if the importance of the EU to the UK would somehow dwindle to the point that it is dwarfed by that of others (combined), the UK could always have left it undisputed, unhindered and totally free of any further commitments in just 2 years time under article 50 of the TEU, so if that is they whole logic underpinning Brexit, then it comes some 50 years too soon, going by JRM's comment in the House of Commons saying the benefits of Brexit would only be seen in 50 years or so...... better have waited a bit with Brexit then and continued to take full benefit of the UK's truly unique and bespoken EU membership for the time being and if and when the economic conditions would have been right to do so, left the EU only then.

I only sell my car once the new one has arrived, yet Brexiteers have sold theirs while they haven't even signed the order form for their new one as it still needs to be designed!
And so they will now have to go on foot for the forseable future, making things up about how much healthier this is and how much more time they'll have to enjoy the scenic landschape along their way to work... not mentioning they'll show up late everywhere, often soaked wet. That's Brexit for you in a nutshell for the next 50 years at least.

sabenapilot wrote:

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

Theyr'e not actually going to claim us they didn't figure out the European Court of Justice (officially the Court of Justice of the European Union) in Luxembourg is NOT the same as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, do they???

The ECHR is the Court of the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the European (Union) Council, the regular meeting of all 27 heads of State/Government of the EU) and rules on any claimed violations of political rights and human rights of individuals present on the territory of all countries beween Keflavik and Vladivostok, to the exception of Belorussia.

ECHR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... man_Rights
ECJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

Seems the ouright hatred for anything 'European' has prevented them from actually gaining basic knowledge and a good understanding of all the different organisations, institutions and arrangements they collectively called 'Europe', not understanding that ther are often not the same, not all similar to the EU and not all covered with Brexit! .

You're really expecting subtle nuances like that to be noticed by the average Brexiteer? If it says "European" anywhere on the tin, they don't want it.

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

This is about more than just trade. The quoted parts about the ECHR are about "cooperation on law enforcement and judicial matters".

In some way the UK description of the EU and single market as the common market has catched up up with reality. My understanding of this FTA is that it is close to the common market version 1973 that UK signed up for before Tatcher came with the SM and closer integration.

The difference between 1973 and what will meet UK 2021 is that in 1973 UK was on similar size as France and Germany. Now it it UK vs EU that is big difference and UK will ned to desire if to be a rule taker like Swiss and Norway or go even more far away then this FTA.

Brexiteer express reads more and more of the agreement it seems;


Now that the UK will leave the EU next Thursday, two separate markets will be formed.

The EU and the UK will be able to trade goods with each other without the addition of tariffs and quotas.

However, a separate deal needs to be implemented for the UK's financial services industry.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13768 ... -never-end

In brief, Goods where EU sells more to UK is done.

Services where UK exports more TBD.

In brexiteer view service exports has never existed only goods.

But now we see that trade in goods has been decreasing EU UK the last few years. I expect UK exports of services also is taking a big hit.

Special France is very open with wanting to make Services move back to EU as fast as possible.

agill wrote:

OA260 wrote:

agill wrote:

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

You could travel on a national ID card before . Now you will need a proper passport .

Yes I understand that. Just didn't know that you could do that when traveling to the uk. Though it was a schengen thing.

Its mostly a Schengen thing but you could always use them to the UK and Ireland both of which were always Non Schengen. The Irish don't have ID cards but a special “Passport Card” that is recognised by both the EU and UK . The passport requirement will still not apply to Irish nationals due to the CTA agreement.

Agreement has been published online here


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2.2020.pdf

olle wrote:

Brexiteer express reads more and more of the agreement it seems;


Now that the UK will leave the EU next Thursday, two separate markets will be formed.

The EU and the UK will be able to trade goods with each other without the addition of tariffs and quotas.

However, a separate deal needs to be implemented for the UK's financial services industry.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13768 ... -never-end

In brief, Goods where EU sells more to UK is done.

Services where UK exports more TBD.

Is the express run by people who don't understand the world, or what?

A FTA is always focussed on goods, with no or very minimal services covered.

For an economy which is 80% services like that of the UK, the sovereign right to sign own British FTAs means very little, especially not since the deal with the EU makes it clear in the rules-of-origin section that cummulation only applies to bilateral UK-EU trade, not to third parties... let's wait till the express discovers that 'little' issue.

Not only is 80% of British trade with the EU NOT covered, the remaining 20% is only covered if it is domestically made or comes from the EU first, meaning part of British manufactured export to the EU (and lilkely in whole due to the shear size of the EU market to those manufacturers) will have to quickly resource from third party suppliers to EU/British suppliers if they want to avoid tariffs. Next to that the UK will loose access to a ton of EU FTAs with third countries, has signed Trade Continuation Agreements with some other third countries which siply roll over the terms of any EU FTA with that county but use only the excess quota not used by the EU (an excess which will shrink every year!), and has signed a single one FTA of its own with Japan which is 99,99% identical to the EU FTA too... the 0,01% difference, the EU automatically gets from Japan too now, thanks to the most favoured nation clause in the EU-Japan FTA!
Where Brexiteers think to find the elements to suddenly thrive migthtily from globally, I am eager to find out: everything breathes a sense of second class.

sabenapilot wrote:

olle wrote:

Brexiteer express reads more and more of the agreement it seems;


Now that the UK will leave the EU next Thursday, two separate markets will be formed.

The EU and the UK will be able to trade goods with each other without the addition of tariffs and quotas.

However, a separate deal needs to be implemented for the UK's financial services industry.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13768 ... -never-end

In brief, Goods where EU sells more to UK is done.

Services where UK exports more TBD.

Is the express run by people who don't understand the world, or what?

A FTA is always focussed on goods, with no or very minimal services covered.

For an economy which is 80% services like that of the UK, the sovereign right to sign own British FTAs means very little, especially not since the deal with the EU makes it clear that cummulation only applies to bilateral UK-EU trade, not to third parties... let's wait till the express discovers that 'little' issue.

Not only is 80% of trade NOT covered, the remaining 20% is only covered if it is domestically made or comes from the EU first, it means part of British manufactured export to the EU (and lilkely in whole due to the shear size of the EU market to those manufacturers) will have to resource from third party suppliers to EU/British suppliers.

So considering that UK and brexiteers wants to be part of a common market model 1973 with no veto for smaller nations they should be pleased.

But even if the EU goal as closer integration and peace project is something that UK never seems to have signed up for I still missing the very basic calculation of the total trade balance UK EU for goods and services. I know that EU exports more goods to UK then importing but I assume that UK exports more services to EU them importing.

Do anyone have the total balance? Because before throwing service export out of the window someone must have calculated this I suppose?

OA260 wrote:

Agreement has been published online here


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2.2020.pdf

I thought this was going to be published night beforebMPs vote in order to avoid MPs to read it before voting? What happens if they actually understands what they voting for?

olle wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Agreement has been published online here


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2.2020.pdf

I thought this was going to be published night beforebMPs vote in order to avoid MPs to read it before voting? What happens if they actually understands what they voting for?

The majority will vote for it even the opposition knowing exactly what it entails. But in reality how many people are going to read 1200 pages ? Are you intending to read the full agreement?

OA260 wrote:

olle wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Agreement has been published online here


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2.2020.pdf

I thought this was going to be published night beforebMPs vote in order to avoid MPs to read it before voting? What happens if they actually understands what they voting for?

The majority will vote for it even the opposition knowing exactly what it entails. But in reality how many people are going to read 1200 pages ? Are you intending to read the full agreement?

If I was MP or MEP elected to understand what I am voting for I would. That is what I am elected for and I am supposed to understand on behalf of the voters I represent.

I am actually used to read legal texts and often support to inform about complicated matters.

I therefore also expect MP and MEP to have experts explaining for them what consequences the texts has, what part of the texts that could mean problems etc.

olle wrote:

OA260 wrote:

olle wrote:

I thought this was going to be published night beforebMPs vote in order to avoid MPs to read it before voting? What happens if they actually understands what they voting for?

The majority will vote for it even the opposition knowing exactly what it entails. But in reality how many people are going to read 1200 pages ? Are you intending to read the full agreement?

If I was MP or MEP elected to understand what I am voting for I would. That is what I am elected for and I am supposed to understand on behalf of the voters I represent.

I am actually used to read legal texts and often support to inform about complicated matters.

I therefore also expect MP and MEP to have experts explaining for them what consequences the texts has, what part of the texts that could mean problems etc.

I doubt the MP's or MEP's will do that to be honest. They will be briefed on the most important aspects of the agreement and vote accordingly. That applies to both sides.

Indeed, besides what's the alternative?
It's the story of the glass being half empty or half full, depending the way you look at it, with the only alternative left no water in it whatsoever...
Fact is we come from a full glass, so I hope none of them is too thirsty.
But let's rejoyce for there is now more 'air' in the glass: that's basically what Brexiteers now try to sell the people.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

So in short: [...]

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?

I'm not "complaining". I'm pointing out that the entire Brexit campaign has led to nothing but failure for the UK and none of the grand delusions of the Brexit campaign have been realized.

The treaty merely acknowledges that the UK is and remains dependent on access to the EU, but apart from a bit of cosmetic the only substantial change is that Brexit has robbed the UK of its formerly substantial influence on the same rules it will now continue to have to follow. That's the reality of "Brexit is Brexit".

But you are not British. You do not live in the UK. The UK leaving causes nothing adverse to you.

So why continue to complain about Brexit and the deal?

Time to move on I think.

Id like to see an independent report not funded by the EU or UK giving the facts about what the EU are loosing and what the UK are loosing. Also what both sides are gaining. We have had the propaganda from both the EU and UK publications but I feel a non biased report would be advantageous to those of us that want full facts and not just opinions on what they think it means.

I have so far read in various media flaws on both sides publications/claims.

This is nice bridging solution. The UK is now free to make better deals with other countries and leave the EU behind once it is convenient.

olle wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Agreement has been published online here


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2.2020.pdf

I thought this was going to be published night beforebMPs vote in order to avoid MPs to read it before voting? What happens if they actually understands what they voting for?

The plan backfired when the EU published the agreement hours before the UK did . It seems the UK government realised that MPs do have internet and can find the agreement on the EU website and thus not publishing would look foolish.

LJ wrote:

olle wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Agreement has been published online here


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2.2020.pdf

I thought this was going to be published night beforebMPs vote in order to avoid MPs to read it before voting? What happens if they actually understands what they voting for?

The plan backfired when the EU published the agreement hours before the UK did . It seems the UK government realised that MPs do have internet and can find the agreement on the EU website and thus not publishing would look foolish.

Were they not legally obliged to publish it anyway ? I have not seen any reference or link to state otherwise ?

OA260 wrote:

LJ wrote:

olle wrote:

I thought this was going to be published night beforebMPs vote in order to avoid MPs to read it before voting? What happens if they actually understands what they voting for?

The plan backfired when the EU published the agreement hours before the UK did . It seems the UK government realised that MPs do have internet and can find the agreement on the EU website and thus not publishing would look foolish.

Were they not legally obliged to publish it anyway ? I have not seen any reference or link to state otherwise ?

I think wr can safely assume that the UK always intended to publish the full report. However, it's odd that there wasn't any coordination between the EU and UK as it was on the EU website earlier. I do not know if the Uk is legally obliged to publish the agreement. The EU is legally required to publish the agreement in full unless there are parts which are deemed "confidential".

LJ wrote:

One of my favoourite blog sites point to the fact that the UK traded the EU in for the UN. So much for taking back control.

https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/trade/the-deal-first-thoughts/
https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-tea-breaks-over/

Thanks, interesting reading!
Slowly the understanding sinks in that this deal simply allows the UK to pretend it can now divert freely from the EU rules (albeit not without a cost then), but that it likely won't, and that in any case it has just signed up to a substitude set of internationally set rules (note how many times the text refers to UN bodies).

The main take-out from the first link is this one, written by a brexiteer.
It does what I wanted it to do, but It does not settle the Brexiteer sovereignty argument as Brexit was never likely to. It is a bigger, more complex dilemma of globalisation where technocracy at the regional and global level is here to stay. The question is one of how it is best tamed. Repatriating the decision making is a good start though.
We are not going to see sunlit uplands. Brexit cannot undo fifty years of globalisation or technological progress. Grimsby will never be what it was. Liverpool neither. Closing the cultural and economic gap between London and the regions isn’t going to happen. There is no £350m Brexit dividend. There isn’t a regulatory blank slate. Britannia can unchain herself from the ECJ, but not from the reality of global trade.
In the end, all “Brexit” really deals with is the end of our membership of a supranational project (one we should never have joined), and reasserts Britain as a national entity – separate to, but partnered with the EU. The rest is now down to our own politics. At the very least, we have now removed all excuses

And from the second:
Far from taking back control of “every jot and tittle of our regulation”, we are in exactly the same position we were before we left the EU, working to international standards, not ours.

In both cases, the authors still cant seem to get their heads around the sobering fact Britannia no longer rules the waves and has now become a pure rule taker: it can choose who's rules it follows, but it will be following the rules made by others, whereas before it could co-author them. If even that suboptimal state of affairs wasn't to their liking, I fear that the situation they'll be in as from January will not be liked either, or not for very long;

I think I've posted it once in one the 9 previous Brexit treads, but in Bern, where the Swiss parliament sits, more than half of the MPs time is consacrated to discussing EU rules over which they basically have no say whatsoever, with the only possible outcome of any debate a binary 'accept' or 'reject' to copy-paste these EU rules into Swiss law, with the full knowledge that a single NO vote axes the whole EU-CH legal framework and throws the Swiss economy off the cliff a few months later! You find exactly the same setup back in this EU-UK agreement, going by the number of joint committees, meetings, stearing teams and all of that: the list of them in the annexes is 10 pages long! I guess that will keep quite a bit of civil servants (at the technical level) and MPs (at the poltical level) busy for the rest of their carreers as well as that of their successors, come January next year!

sabenapilot wrote:

And from the second:
Far from taking back control of “every jot and tittle of our regulation”, we are in exactly the same position we were before we left the EU, working to international standards, not ours.

Anyone with half a brain would have realised before the referendum that if you wish to sell your stuff to other countries, your stuff is going to have to meet their standards. It's beyond comprehension that many Brexiteers thought that leaving the EU would change this.

scbriml wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

And from the second:
Far from taking back control of “every jot and tittle of our regulation”, we are in exactly the same position we were before we left the EU, working to international standards, not ours.

Anyone with half a brain would have realised before the referendum that if you wish to sell your stuff to other countries, your stuff is going to have to meet their standards. It's beyond comprehension that many Brexiteers thought that leaving the EU would change this.

I think thats because in the minds of many the British exceptionalism still rules, as well as the idea that somehow Britain is still of the same standing as it was 100 years ago, and could simply impose its rules to others...

EU membership has allowed the UK to continue playing in a league way above its own individual standing for the past half a century through a mechanism of shared sovereignty of the main rulemaker in the western world (the notorious 'Brussels effect'). Whereas that was indeed just co-authorship of those global reference rules, the notion never seems to have been understood that the only realistic alternative to that is no authorship of anything whatsoever, but simply copy-pasting and obeying these rules like the Swiss (compulsory parliamentary action) or the Norwegians/Icelanders/people of Liechtenstein (automatic implementation) do: I fear the UK is not going to like the position of regulatory irrelevance it will find itself in, going by the widespread illusions on sovereignty and exceptionalism...

On the EU list of things that the UK are loosing it says roaming rates will apply yet the major mobile operators have issued statements to refute the Brexit outcome will mean roaming charges .

Despite it being one of the major disadvantages that some posted during the last threads it seems good news for consumers that its turned out to be incorrect. Of course years down the line it could change but offers some comfort to those that were genuinely worried.

Another thing that was heavily stated by some on these threads and in general media was that UK citizens would have to stand in the Non EU EEA lines at EU airports . Does this still apply so on 1/1/21 all UK citizens will now join the Non EU line ?

OA260 wrote:

On the EU list of things that the UK are loosing it says roaming rates will apply yet the major mobile operators have issued statements to refute the Brexit outcome will mean roaming charges .

Despite it being one of the major disadvantages that some posted during the last threads it seems good news for consumers that its turned out to be incorrect. Of course years down the line it could change but offers some comfort to those that were genuinely worried.

And you genuinely believe a commercial company will voluntarily waiver the possiblity to increase their tariffs and thus their profit, in the long run?
They know they are heavily watched right now and don't want any bad publicity, especially not around new year when a lot of people change contract, so come Jan 1st, nothing will change... but take the non-meaningul 17th of March 2021 for instance and they will suddenly inform their customers of a new tariff structure in which they'll get for instance 1MB extra bandwidth and some extra recording time in their inbox,... oh, and sadly will have to start paying more for roaming too..
it's a matter of when, not if, everybody knows that.
Besides, the issue exists in 2 directions: even if British operators don't want to charge extra, they'll still be depending on say Telefonica in Spain or Deutsche Telecom etc..; why would they care about the extra costs to Brits, all they care is their profit, and this is easy money. It took 15 years of fighting to get rid of the roaming costs in Europe, remember? And that's not because the operators were so willing to let go of them of course...

sabenapilot wrote:

OA260 wrote:

On the EU list of things that the UK are loosing it says roaming rates will apply yet the major mobile operators have issued statements to refute the Brexit outcome will mean roaming charges .

Despite it being one of the major disadvantages that some posted during the last threads it seems good news for consumers that its turned out to be incorrect. Of course years down the line it could change but offers some comfort to those that were genuinely worried.

And you genuinely believe a commercial company will voluntarily waiver the possiblity to increase their tariffs and thus their profit, in the long run?
They know they are heavily watched right now and don't want any bad publicity, especially not around new year when a lot of people change contract, so come Jan 1st, nothing will change... but take the non-meaningul 17th of March 2021 for instance and they will suddenly inform their customers of a new tariff structure in which they'll get for instance 1MB extra bandwidth and some extra recording time in their inbox,... oh, and sadly will have to start paying more for roaming too..
it's a matter of when, not if, everybody knows that.
Besides, the issue exists in 2 directions: even if British operators don't want to charge extra, they'll still be depending on say Telefonica in Spain or Deutsche Telecom etc..; why would they care about the extra costs to Brits, all they care is their profit, and this is easy money. It took 15 years of fighting to get rid of the roaming costs in Europe, remember? And that's not because the operators were so willing to let go of them of course...

Well you have the major company 3 who operate in many markets but for a number of years I have not paid for roaming in the USA even though they are under no obligation to offer that service and must be loosing money by not doing that. There must be a reason why they offer free roaming in USA , Australia and New Zealand. Its not a EU requirement. The rule applies to PAYG and contracts. With a lot of competition in the market I doubt it will change . Also in the UK there is a law that lets you cancel your contract should there be a substantial change in terms.

OA260 wrote:

Well you have the major company 3 who operate in many markets but for a number of years I have not paid for roaming in the USA even though they are under no obligation to offer that service and must be loosing money by not doing that. There must be a reason why they offer free roaming in USA , Australia and New Zealand. Its not a EU requirement. The rule applies to PAYG and contracts. With a lot of competition in the market I doubt it will change . Also in the UK there is a law that lets you cancel your contract should there be a substantial change in terms.

Well that's all great but as is clearly said: a legal protection and an enforceable right is lost and its at best replaced by a commercial goodwill, not even in the hands of the contracted operator alone... it remains to be seen how long it takes before they succeed at reworking their tariff plan so it makes a revenue difference for them after all but I certainly wouldn't bet my house on it not being changed. If you want to do so, be very careful. Mobile phone operators are real crooks! Ask anybody who flew through GVA//BSL for instance what happens if you accidentally end up on the Swiss network iso the French network which are both active at these airports as you get your mails push delivered to you: on the 'wrong' network it sets you back the price of a stamp per e-mail while on the right network, its included in your contract. It hurts when you hear 7 or 8 'beeps' as the mails roll in and you realise your screen says Swisscom at the top!
Such is life in Switzerland and such life will become in the UK too. both are soon to sit in the same regulatory boat.

sabenapilot wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Well you have the major company 3 who operate in many markets but for a number of years I have not paid for roaming in the USA even though they are under no obligation to offer that service and must be loosing money by not doing that. There must be a reason why they offer free roaming in USA , Australia and New Zealand. Its not a EU requirement. The rule applies to PAYG and contracts. With a lot of competition in the market I doubt it will change . Also in the UK there is a law that lets you cancel your contract should there be a substantial change in terms.

Well that's all great but as is clearly said: a legal protection and an enforceable right is lost and its at best replaced by a commercial goodwill, not even in the hands of the contracted operator alone... it remains to be seen how long it takes before they succeed at reworking their tariff plan so it makes a revenue difference for them after all but I certainly wouldn't bet my house on it not being changed. If you want to do so, be very careful. Mobile phone operators are real crooks! Ask anybody who flew through GVA//BSL for instance what happens if you accidentally end up on the Swiss network iso the French network which are both active at these airports as you get your mails push delivered to you: on the 'wrong' network it sets you back the price of a stamp per e-mail while on the right network, its included in your contract. It hurts when you hear 7 or 8 'beeps' as the mails roll in and you realise your screen says Swisscom at the top!
Such is life in Switzerland and such life will become in the UK too. both are soon to sit in the same regulatory boat.

I never pay roaming in Switzerland either .In fact 71 destinations .

“ Go Roam lets you use your call, text and data allowance in 71 destinations around the world at no extra cost (up to fair usage limits). So, you can sit back, relax and get your ‘gram on without worrying about roaming charges.”

http://www.three.co.uk/go-roam

For those that do maybe time to change network !

As said: when its not an enforceable right any longer, it's up to the individual appreciation of the operator for as long as he seems fit.
Not all markets see a whole range of competing operators, so choice is sometimes rather limited...
I prefer legal rights over commercial gestures.

sabenapilot wrote:

As said: when its not an enforceable right any longer, it's up to the individual appreciation of the operator for as long as he seems fit.
Not all markets see a whole range of competing operators, so choice is sometimes rather limited...
I prefer legal rights over commercial gestures.

Yet over the last few decades having lived in various EU and Non EU countries and before such EU rules I always found the UK market to be very competitive and in fact even when other EU countries were holding onto roaming charges many UK operators had scrapped them . Maybe the UK market was ahead of the EU and rules had to be introduced into certain EU countries to make them competitive. You paying roaming charges in Switzerland being one example.

OA260 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Well you have the major company 3 who operate in many markets but for a number of years I have not paid for roaming in the USA even though they are under no obligation to offer that service and must be loosing money by not doing that. There must be a reason why they offer free roaming in USA , Australia and New Zealand. Its not a EU requirement. The rule applies to PAYG and contracts. With a lot of competition in the market I doubt it will change . Also in the UK there is a law that lets you cancel your contract should there be a substantial change in terms.

Well that's all great but as is clearly said: a legal protection and an enforceable right is lost and its at best replaced by a commercial goodwill, not even in the hands of the contracted operator alone... it remains to be seen how long it takes before they succeed at reworking their tariff plan so it makes a revenue difference for them after all but I certainly wouldn't bet my house on it not being changed. If you want to do so, be very careful. Mobile phone operators are real crooks! Ask anybody who flew through GVA//BSL for instance what happens if you accidentally end up on the Swiss network iso the French network which are both active at these airports as you get your mails push delivered to you: on the 'wrong' network it sets you back the price of a stamp per e-mail while on the right network, its included in your contract. It hurts when you hear 7 or 8 'beeps' as the mails roll in and you realise your screen says Swisscom at the top!
Such is life in Switzerland and such life will become in the UK too. both are soon to sit in the same regulatory boat.

I never pay roaming in Switzerland either .In fact 71 destinations .

“ Go Roam lets you use your call, text and data allowance in 71 destinations around the world at no extra cost (up to fair usage limits). So, you can sit back, relax and get your ‘gram on without worrying about roaming charges.”

http://www.three.co.uk/go-roam

For those that do maybe time to change network !

3 offers a really useful product for frequent travellers. Don't be fooled though, they charge a hefty premium for it. If I only travelled in EU countries, I could get away with paying as little as 25% of what I pay for my 3 subscription.