General Brexit discussion thread

[Stevlin]

As part of the leaving process the UK had to agree the WA and also outline the items for agreement as part of a FTA in the political declaration. Fisheries, Level playing field etc were all part of that. The UK signed this off in January. Now the UK looks like it wants to exclude fisheries and the EU reminds the UK of it's commitments. You call that inflexible, can't you see that it's the UK that is trying to go back on it's word. The UK agreed to look at setting fishing quotas in it's waters, you think they can just walk away from that without the EU reacting. It's so so so simple, the UK needs to stop breaking it's word and if it agrees to do A,B or C then it should do that. Otherwise their won't be a deal and the only one to blame will be the UK.

Frankly Gerry, you really do astound me with some of your claims....the Withdrawal agreement, as you correctly pointed out, was an integral part of the Brexit process - but it is ridiculous to imply that the UK had committed itself to continue to share fishing territories as part of the STILL to BE NEGOTIATED post Brexit trade agreement. Brexit, was intended to REGAIN full sovereignty for the UK - which means that the UK wold be capable oy yet again acting as a FULLY SOVEREIGN country. A level playing field just doesn't come into it.  The UK would be a independent body -  just as the EU , ( in essence[) would be- and it is false to imply that the UK has somehow broken it's word.

The withdrawal agreement was precisely that....the details of the various steps which would be taken to facilitate the parting of the ways....and hopefully, to subsequently agree an ABSOLUTELY NEW subsequent basis of trade.

Future trade could indeed be carried out via 'tariffs' if a mutually amicable agreement was not reached - but it is ridiculous for the French, and the EU negotiators to insist on the retention of access into British waters as part of a future trade agreement.

Even though May didn't believe what she claimed - I really DO believe that NO DEAL is better than a bad deal - and Fishing rights has NO PLACE whatsoever in a post Brexit" TRADE" deal - and neither does EU rules OR the use of an EU Court  to settle any UK/EU trade disputes.

Would you be happy if Ireland was outside of the EU, and Irish/UK trade disputes would be settled by a UK court??.... No, I didn't think so.

[GerryT]

Yes they are - so, yes you are!! The fact , that various items were agreed to be discussed does not mean that they would be made freely available - or even agreed in any form.... and Macron has even stated that there will be no deal trade deal unless access the UK fishing grounds is made available to the EU...which is yet another great reason for the UK to walk away without a deal.

 



Well then, perhaps you could start by dismantling  the Article in the FT in November last year, which made that claim.....albeit, they didn't clear the UK of procrastination either.

But I would guess that you would struggle to dismantle a simple  meccano structure never mind anything else.

As part of the leaving process the UK had to agree the WA and also outline the items for agreement as part of a FTA in the political declaration. Fisheries, Level playing field etc were all part of that. The UK signed this off in January. Now the UK looks like it wants to exclude fisheries and the EU reminds the UK of it's commitments. You call that inflexible, can't you see that it's the UK that is trying to go back on it's word. The UK agreed to look at setting fishing quotas in it's waters, you think they can just walk away from that without the EU reacting. It's so so so simple, the UK needs to stop breaking it's word and if it agrees to do A,B or C then it should do that. Otherwise their won't be a deal and the only one to blame will be the UK.

[Stevlin]

The UK look for a comprehensive FTA without fisheries/NI border/level playing field/CJEU(only on EU law interpretation, otherwise it's a joint committee for dispute resolution) etc...  The EU remind the UK guys that it was agreed with Johnson that these would form part of a future trade deal and the news back to the UK from UK negotiators is the EU are inflexible. And that makes me a tripe merchant.

Yes they are - so, yes you are!! The fact , that various items were agreed to be discussed does not mean that they would be made freely available - or even agreed in any form.... and Macron has even stated that there will be no deal trade deal unless access the UK fishing grounds is made available to the EU...which is yet another great reason for the UK to walk away without a deal.

 

So can you give some specific examples of why the UK negotiators think the EU are inflexible, and I'll happily dismantle that for you.

Well then, perhaps you could start by dismantling  the Article in the FT in November last year, which made that claim.....albeit, they didn't clear the UK of procrastination either.

But I would guess that you would struggle to dismantle a simple  meccano structure never mind anything else.

[GerryT]

You really are a 'tripe merchant' Jerry...it is YOU that appears to have an innate inability to comprehend reality. The biggest complaint from the British negotiators is that barmy Barnier is totally inflexible, and appears to be incapable of dropping his key 'demands' which would inevitably retain an unwanted political association with the EU. That naturally, is music to my ears, and I hope Barmier sticks to his guns ..... OUT without a deal, whilst not as good as OUT with a deal, is FAR, FAR more preferable than any continued political association with the undemocratic EU.



Sorry for the above partial double posting....my laptop was bombed by an unwanted adware posting which I couldn't remove....'Byteware' or something similar...so I just tried to pass it by, but didn't notice the double comments...

Well if it's worth saying it's worth saying twice !



The UK look for a comprehensive FTA without fisheries/NI border/level playing field/CJEU(only on EU law interpretation, otherwise it's a joint committee for dispute resolution) etc...  The EU remind the UK guys that it was agreed with Johnson that these would form part of a future trade deal and the news back to the UK from UK negotiators is the EU are inflexible. And that makes me a tripe merchant.



So can you give some specific examples of why the UK negotiators think the EU are inflexible, and I'll happily dismantle that for you.

[Stevlin]

by Stevlin  



Sorry for the above partial double posting....my laptop was bombed by an unwanted adware posting which I couldn't remove....'Byteware' or something similar...so I just tried to pass it by, but didn't notice the double comments...

[Stevlin]

The EU have been frustrated by the lack of engagement from the UK on a trade deal and it's lies being spouted domestically. The UK still hasn't published it's trade documents and only in the past couple of weeks gave them to the EU but the EU published there's months ago.





Your understanding of what's happened is lacking.

You really are a 'tripe merchant' Jerry...it is YOU that appears to have an innate  inability to  'comprehend' reality. The biggest complaint from the British negotiators is that barmy Barnier is totally inflexible, and appears to be incapable of dropping his key 'demands' which would inevitably retain an unwanted  political association with the EU. That naturally, is music to my ears, and I hope Barmier sticks to his guns ..... OUT without a deal, whilst not as good as OUT with a deal, is FAR, FAR more preferable than any continued political association with the undemocratic EU.

[GerryT]

What the hell is it with you Gerry??? I would remind you of what you stated - "Have you some detail on the "demands" " - which was the principal reason for my pointing out to you that the EU are NOT endeavouring to agree a 'Trade Deal' with the UK in the same way that they would with a sovereign state...they are also insisting that we rely upon the EU's court for resolution of 'TRADE' disputes....yet another ridiculous DEMAND....such 'requirements', if accepted by the UK would NOT be in the spirit of the democratic wish for Brexit to be enacted.

The EU have been frustrated by the lack of engagement from the UK on a trade deal and it's lies being spouted domestically. The UK still hasn't published it's trade documents and only in the past couple of weeks gave them to the EU but the EU published there's months ago.

That is absolute poppycock Gerry....''level playing fields" don't come into it - and in any event - having to comply with EJC rulings can hardly be viewed as being in the spirit of a 'level playing field', and it is just arrant nonsense to pretend that access to the UK's fishing territories is an example of this - and it is you that is being naïve if you actually believe that such a requirement is a normal element of international trading agreements. Maybe you could point out some international Trade agreements that empower a one sided court to rule on any trade disputes within a particular international trade Agreement.

You also appear to 'conveniently' forget that prior to the formation of the CM/EU, the EU countries did not have right of access to UK fishing territories, and vice versa....international 'rules' were applied.....and these rules still exist.

It was pointed out by someone, ( I can't recall by whom ), that such an extraordinary one sided agreement is totally contradictory to international practice, and it is certainly something that the UK wouldn't have accepted  prior to joining the EU, and consequently, it shouldn't even contemplate adopting it when it has  regained it's truly sovereign status.

Your understanding of what's happened is lacking. The Withdrawal Agreement included a political declaration on the future relationship. A framework of where both the EU and UK see the future trade deal. Without this there would have been no transition period and the UK would be now on WTO.

The UK or Johnson agreed and signed the UK up to the political declaration. Section 12 deals with Fisheries and the future outline was for both parties to promote resource conservation, working with other coastal states to manage shared stocks, both parties should establish a new fisheries agreement with access to waters and quota shares, the parties will endeavour to conclude and ratify the new fisheries agreement by 1 July 2020 in order for it to be in place for the following year's fishing. Now as Johnson agreed this, is that a Demand in your book ?



Level playing field gets lots of mentions, under the objectives section it says a FTA would be underpinned by a level playing field. Section 14 of the future declaration goes into detail about the level playing field, such as robust competition and state aid, social & employment standards, environment, climate change, relevant tax matters and adherence to the Paris Agreement. It goes on to mention enforcement and dispute settlement. Johnson signed his agreement to this on behalf of the UK, is this also a Demand ?



Guess what there's also a section on Law Enforcement and Judicial cooperation. It kicks off with adherence to the ECHR and protection of personal Data. It clearly states in paragraph 126 that disputes would be settled by a joint committee establishing its own rules or procedures & reaching decisions mutually, if this fails then a independent arbitration panel would make a binding decision. If there were a dispute over interpretation of union law the matter would be refereed to the CJEU and they would rule only on matters of union law. Some how the rag press have twisted this to make it sound like ECJ and the EU making demands. But do you think the above provision is another EU Demand ?

My mistake earlier stating ECJ, it's CJEU.



You seem outraged that the EU are bringing up fisheries, level playing field and CJEU. These were all agreed by the UK to form part of the future relationship, was that lies, did Johnson sign the declaration of a future deal to just move things on and get a transition period. Beacuse that's what it looks like when UK politicians and press make out that these are Demands.

[Stevlin]

That's exactly how talks take place.

What the hell is it with you Gerry??? I would remind you of what you stated - "Have you some detail on the "demands" " - which was the principal reason for my pointing out to you that the EU are NOT endeavouring to agree a 'Trade Deal' with the UK in the same way that they would with a sovereign state...they are also insisting that we rely upon the EU's court for resolution of 'TRADE' disputes....yet another ridiculous DEMAND....such 'requirements', if accepted by the UK would NOT be in the spirit of the democratic wish for Brexit to be enacted.

    The EU says what it wants, such as level playing field, ECJ for dispute resolution, access to fisheries, EU oversight to ensure the UK is following the rules... The UK will also have their list, and that's how it goes. To think fisheries wouldn't be part of an international trade deal is frankly naive, when access to these waters goes back centuries it would be hard to see how this would't form part of a trade deal. It may not appear in trade talks with Canada, China and Korea, but that's self explanatory.

That is absolute poppycock Gerry....''level playing fields" don't come into it - and in any event - having to comply with EJC rulings can hardly be viewed as being in the spirit of a 'level playing field', and it is just arrant nonsense to pretend that access to the UK's fishing territories is an example of this - and it is you that is being naïve if you actually believe that such a requirement is a normal element of international trading agreements. Maybe you could point out some international Trade agreements that empower a one sided court to rule on any trade disputes within a particular international trade Agreement.

You also appear to 'conveniently' forget that prior to the formation of the CM/EU, the EU countries did not have right of access to UK fishing territories, and vice versa....international 'rules' were applied.....and these rules still exist.

It was pointed out by someone, ( I can't recall by whom ), that such an extraordinary one sided agreement is totally contradictory to international practice, and it is certainly something that the UK wouldn't have accepted  prior to joining the EU, and consequently, it shouldn't even contemplate adopting it when it has  regained it's truly sovereign status.

[GerryT]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1282564/Brexit-news-UK-EU-trade-talks-Brexit-deal-Michel-Barnier-David-Frost-latest-update">https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12825 ... est-update">https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1282564/Brexit-news-UK-EU-trade-talks-Brexit-deal-Michel-Barnier-David-Frost-latest-update

I have indicated earlier that Macron had been reported as stating that access to British fishing territories had to be  part of any future 'trade agreement' - which is hardly a typical requirement of any international trade agreement negotiations...

That's exactly how talks take place. The EU says what it wants, such as level playing field, ECJ for dispute resolution, access to fisheries, EU oversight to ensure the UK is following the rules... The UK will also have their list, and that's how it goes. To think fisheries wouldn't be part of an international trade deal is frankly naive, when access to these waters goes back centuries it would be hard to see how this would't form part of a trade deal. It may not appear in trade talks with Canada, China and Korea, but that's self explanatory.

 

If fisheries are that important to the EU they may say a deal is contingent on the EU having x,y and z access to UK waters. IF the UK don't like it they can walk away. Likewise if the UK have a red line (and they usually have loads) then if the EU doesn't agree the UK can walk away. It's why trade deals take so long to agree.



But for the express to suggest that this is new news is at best misleading. Fisheries like the NI border have been central to Brexit since 2016 and got a mention in the signed Johnson withdrawal agreement. It's not demands, just rag paper click bait.

[Streetwalker]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1282564/Brexit-news-UK-EU-trade-talks-Brexit-deal-Michel-Barnier-David-Frost-latest-update">https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12825 ... est-update">https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1282564/Brexit-news-UK-EU-trade-talks-Brexit-deal-Michel-Barnier-David-Frost-latest-update

I have indicated earlier that Macron had been reported as stating that access to British fishing territories had to be  part of any future 'trade agreement' - which is hardly a typical requirement of any international trade agreement negotiations...

Thank you Stevlin . The fishing rights has been like a stuck record from the EU ,how many times do our guys have to say NO before they get the message . They get told no for the umpteenth time and at the next meeting with some progress being made after days of talks they say , we must have fishing rights as part of the deal . Feck off NO how many more times

[Stevlin]

Have you some detail on the "demands" past and new ?  not the usual way for negotiations to take place.

And when you say UK suggestions, are these along the lines of "give us a FTA and all benefits for being a member without being a member" which has been the position to date.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1282564/Brexit-news-UK-EU-trade-talks-Brexit-deal-Michel-Barnier-David-Frost-latest-update">https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12825 ... est-update">https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1282564/Brexit-news-UK-EU-trade-talks-Brexit-deal-Michel-Barnier-David-Frost-latest-update

I have indicated earlier that Macron had been reported as stating that access to British fishing territories had to be  part of any future 'trade agreement' - which is hardly a typical requirement of any international trade agreement negotiations...

[GerryT]

Yes this weeks talks have ended with the EU making more demands and rejecting anything the UK put forward . The UK in turn has rejected said demands and will now be deciding whether its worth continuing trying to come to an agreement in June or just pulling the plug . Talks will then continue on the ins and outs of a no deal Brexit .

Have you some detail on the "demands" past and new ?  not the usual way for negotiations to take place.

And when you say UK suggestions, are these along the lines of "give us a FTA and all benefits for being a member without being a member" which has been the position to date.

[Streetwalker]

Well this is an interesting development. The EU takes the first step in taking the UK to court for not implementing the freedom of movement provisions during the transition period, as agreed by the UK in Johnson's withdrawal agreement. An interesting development, while talks are on going this week on a future trade deal this is a clear message to the UK that when an agreement is made the EU expects the UK to do what it agreed.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1260878611319570437">https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/stat ... 1319570437">https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1260878611319570437

Coupled with the recent news that the UK will be putting in border checks Plus the recognition today that NI people can be EU citizens, all be a temporary rule during the transition period, it put's to rest a 3 yr old case for one NI person.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/northern-ireland-born-british-and-irish-win-eu-citizenship-rights-1.4253692">https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.4253692">https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/northern-ireland-born-british-and-irish-win-eu-citizenship-rights-1.4253692

Is this a sign of things to come.

Yes this weeks talks have ended with the EU making more demands and rejecting anything the UK put forward . The UK in turn has rejected said demands and will now be deciding whether its worth continuing trying to come to an agreement in June or just pulling the plug . Talks will then continue on the ins and outs of a no deal Brexit .

[GerryT]

Well this is an interesting development. The EU takes the first step in taking the UK to court for not implementing the freedom of movement provisions during the transition period, as agreed by the UK in Johnson's withdrawal agreement. An interesting development, while talks are on going this week on a future trade deal this is a clear message to the UK that when an agreement is made the EU expects the UK to do what it agreed.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1260878611319570437">https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/stat ... 1319570437">https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1260878611319570437

Coupled with the recent news that the UK will be putting in border checks Plus the recognition today that NI people can be EU citizens, all be a temporary rule during the transition period, it put's to rest a 3 yr old case for one NI person.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/northern-ireland-born-british-and-irish-win-eu-citizenship-rights-1.4253692">https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.4253692">https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/northern-ireland-born-british-and-irish-win-eu-citizenship-rights-1.4253692

Is this a sign of things to come.

[Borchester]

I'm not sure about Gerry's sense of humour..........still he did think Leo was a good leader so I could be off the mark  

 :hattip