So where are these 40 trade deals?

[Major Sinic]

What made me open the Brexit section of the forum? Masochism? Curiousity? Boredom? Amusement? Probably a pinch of each! It has taken the UK over three and a half years to implement the democratic decision for the UK to leave the EU; a decision which was firmly confirmed in the General Election.



Even after all this wasted time we have only made it to the starting grid. However to read the ongoing Brexit threads one might get the impression rom the interering foreigners in the Republic of Ireland and the resentful remainers from within that the UK is already on the way to economic. social and cultural hell in a hand cart. Now we know that the Irish in particular are partial to leprechauns and other elf like creations, enjoy star gazing and fairy tales and looking into upside goldfish bowls and pontificating about the future. They are joined on this post-Brexit thread by the usual suspects Beelebub, Javert with only Quackers missing.



The bottom line is that none of these self-important pompous proseletyzers has the gift of prophecy, and however much they may hope the UK falls flat on its face, there are as yet no signs or facts to indicate that this will be the case. Now I understand the paddys are worried sick about their own political upheavals just as their kissing cousins in the North have stopped acting like children and reopened Stormont, and recognise that without EU economic help the economic damage Brexit will do to the Republic will be considerable. But what about the UK non-democrats? Well they want it all to fail just so they can sit their poverty stricken but smug, bleating 'I told you so.'



Everything I hoped would happen hitherto has! We have a strong Tory Government with a considerable majority, led by an increasingly strong and statesmanlike Prime Ministerwho against many peoples fears is daily proving to be the 'One Nation Tory' he promised to be and not the far right leader feared by the fevered left. We have left the EU politically and I have the strong hope ( I don't do crystal ball gazing) grounded on reason that within five short years the UK will be the economic envy of many of the of the 27, which by then may well be less.



On the meantime I will ignore these pompous and spiteful soothsayers. Fortunately they don'y stray far from this thread.

[BeElBeeBub]

Both yourself and the renowned forum  Squarker are correct to a point, however, that enlargement supporting stance is historical, and  when Cameron initially endeavoured to stop the 'free movement' entitlement, which was refused, apart from pointing out possible 'emergency ' controls that could be applied by the UK.

 Cameron had made this approach because it was clear that the majority of the British public  objected to  the free movement entitlement, and especially so  the proliferation of the East European countries who understandably, took advantage of that opportunity to improve their way of life.

However, this substantial, largely uncontrollable immigration source of other EU nationals was probably the principal factor behind the growth of Brexiteers. It demonstrably highlighted  the lack of sovereignty, despite all the lies to the contrary, of EU membership, on top of the ridiculous situation of having to annually 'borrow' multi-billions to subsidise member states in order to achieve so called 'mutually' beneficial trade.

I suspect that irresponsible lack of control of immigration was the main reason for voting 'out' when given the 'referendum' opportunity to exit the ridiculous EU 'supranational political concept'.

When the E.European countries acceded in the '00's there was the option of a 7 year "pause" on FoM rights for their citizens.



That is to say any existing MS (eg France, UK, Spain) could wait upto 7 years before having to bring in FoM rights.



The majority of EU countries did this, tapering in the rights.



The UK did not.  



As a result the E.Eurioean workers favoured the UK as a destination. Combined with a strong economy demanding labour and historical links this led to an intially high number coming to the UK to work.



As conditions in their home nations improved (and deteriorated in the UK) the pressures reduced and the numbers fell.



I knew several Poles who packed up and went back to Poland because the opportunities had improved and they were fed up with the UK.



This is part of the reason for the structural funding the EU provides. If we didn't let ex Soviet states join and help them we would have poor neighbours on our doorstep.



Better to have prosperous partners instead.

[Conchúr]

Both yourself and the renowned forum  Squarker are correct to a point, however, that enlargement supporting stance is historical, and  when Cameron initially endeavoured to stop the 'free movement' entitlement, which was refused, apart from pointing out possible 'emergency ' controls that could be applied by the UK.

 Cameron had made this approach because it was clear that the majority of the British public  objected to  the free movement entitlement, and especially so  the proliferation of the East European countries who understandably, took advantage of that opportunity to improve their way of life.

However, this substantial, largely uncontrollable immigration source of other EU nationals was probably the principal factor behind the growth of Brexiteers. It demonstrably highlighted  the lack of sovereignty, despite all the lies to the contrary, of EU membership, on top of the ridiculous situation of having to annually 'borrow' multi-billions to subsidise member states in order to achieve so called 'mutually' beneficial trade.

I suspect that irresponsible lack of control of immigration was the main reason for voting 'out' when given the 'referendum' opportunity to exit the ridiculous EU 'supranational political concept'.

Yes, and the UK exercised its sovereign right to reject free movement by leaving the EU.  



Sovereignty is ultimately defined by what a country can do and what it cannot do.  If free movement was imposed upon the UK with no means of ending it, then yes, that would indeed be a significant impingement of sovereignty.  But the two key phrases there do not apply to the UK's relationship with free movement — it was not 'imposed', because the UK voluntarily signed up to it, and there was a 'means of ending it' via departure from the EU through the Article 50 process.  At all times, the UK has been a voluntary participant in free movement, and has had the legal means to not participate.  These are the hallmarks of sovereignty.  



Now personally, I don't see why people had such a huge problem with EU/EEA migrants in the UK — when statistics show they have been net fiscal contributors to the British economy.  A devastating financial crisis hit the world 3-4 years after the 2004 enlargement, and I fear that Eastern European migrants have been partially scapegoated for problems arising from the financial crisis which were mainly the fault of financial institutions ....not immigrants.

[Stevlin]

I'm sorry but this just isn't true — and I did a fair bit of work in EU internal market and competition law. Firstly, the UK was a major driving force behind the internal market, which Thatcher championed. Germany and France were actually quite ambivalent about the idea of a Single Market at first, so the UK was actually quite a decisive influence on the direction European integration in the later decades of the century.  The UK was also quite influential in the enlargement of the EU, advocating the opening of the Union to new states (particularly Eastern Europe).



I could honestly write all day about EU policies over which the UK had huge influence, suffice to say that the influence was so great that the UK also managed to secure more optouts from the EU than any other member state.

Both yourself and the renowned forum  Squarker are correct to a point, however, that enlargement supporting stance is historical, and  when Cameron initially endeavoured to stop the 'free movement' entitlement, which was refused, apart from pointing out possible 'emergency ' controls that could be applied by the UK.

 Cameron had made this approach because it was clear that the majority of the British public  objected to  the free movement entitlement, and especially so  the proliferation of the East European countries who understandably, took advantage of that opportunity to improve their way of life.

However, this substantial, largely uncontrollable immigration source of other EU nationals was probably the principal factor behind the growth of Brexiteers. It demonstrably highlighted  the lack of sovereignty, despite all the lies to the contrary, of EU membership, on top of the ridiculous situation of having to annually 'borrow' multi-billions to subsidise member states in order to achieve so called 'mutually' beneficial trade.

I suspect that irresponsible lack of control of immigration was the main reason for voting 'out' when given the 'referendum' opportunity to exit the ridiculous EU 'supranational political concept'.

[johnofgwent]

that doesn't seem to chime with the evidence of EU polices that have the UK's fingerprints all over them.



The SM has been mentioned



The UK was a big driver behind TTIP (indeed Boris Johnson was an enthusiastic proponent)

The UK was also a big driver behind the enlargement

It pushed for, and got, a reduced budget in the last budget round.



A significant number of directives were pushed for by the UK - a great example is the recent copyright directive which only passed due to the UK's votes and which the UK is now making a big show of disregarding.







When you say "worked in Brussels" it is implied that was working in the EU in some capacity - as a civil servant in the commission or for the UK government.  Is this correct or do you mean you once had a (non EU governance) job in Brussels?

Ah, sorry, I was there on three occasions working for private sector companies in the telecoms, power and defence sector. It was more than obvious on the first contract they absolutely hated the fact british ingenuity was stealing their thunder..... and the fourth and last was as a consultant to the UK CAA... which was when I really got to see the european dream as the Europeans want it...



ON that last occasion I led the technical team advising the CAA in how to avoid falling foul of the EUs control freakery over air accident report handling in the EU. THAT was fun.

[BeElBeeBub]

But Britain most certainly wasnt remotely influential in the EU.

that doesn't seem to chime with the evidence of EU polices that have the UK's fingerprints all over them.



The SM has been mentioned



The UK was a big driver behind TTIP (indeed Boris Johnson was an enthusiastic proponent)

The UK was also a big driver behind the enlargement

It pushed for, and got, a reduced budget in the last budget round.



A significant number of directives were pushed for by the UK - a great example is the recent copyright directive which only passed due to the UK's votes and which the UK is now making a big show of disregarding.

I worked in Brussels for a short while . We were absolutely hated by their political elite.

When you say "worked in Brussels" it is implied that was working in the EU in some capacity - as a civil servant in the commission or for the UK government.  Is this correct or do you mean you once had a (non EU governance) job in Brussels?

[Conchúr]

But Britain most certainly wasnt remotely influential in the EU. I worked in Brussels for a short while . We were absolutely hated by their political elite.

I'm sorry but this just isn't true — and I did a fair bit of work in EU internal market and competition law. Firstly, the UK was a major driving force behind the internal market, which Thatcher championed. Germany and France were actually quite ambivalent about the idea of a Single Market at first, so the UK was actually quite a decisive influence on the direction European integration in the later decades of the century.  The UK was also quite influential in the enlargement of the EU, advocating the opening of the Union to new states (particularly Eastern Europe).



I could honestly write all day about EU policies over which the UK had huge influence, suffice to say that the influence was so great that the UK also managed to secure more optouts from the EU than any other member state.

[johnofgwent]

I've never understood this opinion to be honest.  If the EU is Franco-German-centric, then why do they even bother with it ?



If it was all simply about the power of France and Germany, then neither of them would be in the EU at all.  Why? Because being in the EU means they have to "suffer" the balancing of interests with smaller states.  If the EU was as Franco-German-centric as you suggest, then why wouldn't France and Germany simply form their own union and do what they want without any political framework for the smaller states to assert their interests "against" them?



The UK was hugely influential in the EU, and saying that it was Franco-German-centric is just not true.  To me, it sounds like a very anachronistic imperial rivalry view, rather than a realistic view.

But Britain most certainly wasnt remotely influential in the EU. I worked in Brussels for a short while . We were absolutely hated by their political elite.

[Conchúr]

I think I most definitely would deny that



After reading your post yesterday I spent a little while looking through the various posts on various pro remain media sites pointing with the usual condescendency we came to expect from sore losers to the "economists 4 brexit" site (now seemingly renamed economists for free trade" and while i can find plenty of statements there to the effect that britain outside the EU will have the ability to flourish the nearest I can get to thatis what we all knew, which is that for 47 years britain's membership of a franco-germano-centric inward looking former trade organisation now wannabe superstate has prevented us from making any attempt to make our own way.



There were numerous businesses who produce things of interest to markets outside the EU who were given the off 30 seconds or so of airtime to explain why tariffs set in Brussels hindered their ability to make money world wide, but generally those voices were drowned out by bleatings of "brexiteers denying the english but no other language speakers of a future in a continent that only speaks the language because amarican aviation interests force them to.

I've never understood this opinion to be honest.  If the EU is Franco-German-centric, then why do they even bother with it ?



If it was all simply about the power of France and Germany, then neither of them would be in the EU at all.  Why? Because being in the EU means they have to "suffer" the balancing of interests with smaller states.  If the EU was as Franco-German-centric as you suggest, then why wouldn't France and Germany simply form their own union and do what they want without any political framework for the smaller states to assert their interests "against" them?



The UK was hugely influential in the EU, and saying that it was Franco-German-centric is just not true.  To me, it sounds like a very anachronistic imperial rivalry view, rather than a realistic view.

[johnofgwent]

Would you deny that a part of the leave pitch was that EU membership has hampered the UK economy and Brexit will free it from that restriction?

I think I most definitely would deny that



After reading your post yesterday I spent a little while looking through the various posts on various pro remain media sites pointing with the usual condescendency we came to expect from sore losers to the "economists 4 brexit" site (now seemingly renamed economists for free trade" and while i can find plenty of statements there to the effect that britain outside the EU will have the ability to flourish the nearest I can get to thatis what we all knew, which is that for 47 years britain's membership of a franco-germano-centric inward looking former trade organisation now wannabe superstate has prevented us from making any attempt to make our own way.



There were numerous businesses who produce things of interest to markets outside the EU who were given the off 30 seconds or so of airtime to explain why tariffs set in Brussels hindered their ability to make money world wide, but generally those voices were drowned out by bleatings of "brexiteers denying the english but no other language speakers of a future in a continent that only speaks the language because amarican aviation interests force them to.

[Conchúr]

How do we know this is or was a lie? We are not free to implement any new deals until after 1st Jan 2021.

Maybe you are privy to the backroom negotiations, I'm not.

The UK is free to negotiate, sign and ratify deals. The claim was that those deals would be rolled over the day after Brexit to be re-ratified.  



It makes one no less of a Brexiteer to say that a lie is a lie.

[cromwell]

Beelbeeb take it from me.  Life it a lot happier when you don't bother posting here for a while and, as the old TV show said, "go and do something useful instead".  



Don't get me wrong, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but the majority of leave voters will never agree with you because none of the negative consequences of what you are explaining will ever hit them, because most of them who post on this forum are retired with gold plated index linked pension income.

Not retired but could be,no index linked pension

They will be quite happy to swallow whatever BS the government comes back with - if Brexit causes a lot of issues, they will blame it on Coronavirus or whatever other thing is going on in the news at the time and most people who voted for Brexit will lap it up.



A cursory glance around here reveals as I expected - Leave voters somehow still being very angry even though they have won and got the Brexit they wanted.

Not angry at all

Various posters saying that they agree with free speech but then going on to imply that news sources that publish opinions they don't agree with shouldn't be allowed.... need I go on....

I think we all do agree with free speech,must've missed where various posters said they agree with free speech but news sources shouldn't be allowed to publish what they don't agree with,can you provide links to them?

We lost - best thing is to give them about 10 years to completely screw everything up and then come back later.

Post as often as you like but don't expect that you wont be challenged.

[Javert]

Back in 2017 we were told that "...we'll have up to 40 [trade deals] ready for one second after midnight in March 2019..."



We've had an extra 10 months and I've allowed for the weekend and even Monday to shake of the hangovers, so where are these trade deals?



This was the person in charge responding to criticisms that the UK wouldn't have any agreements before we leave.



He was demonstrably wrong, on a pretty major point.



So far only 20 agreements have been secured and even those don't fully replicate that current levels.



How are Leavers going to hand wave this away.  



My bet: just ignore the inconvenient facts.  Alternatively, claim this was always the plan and exactly what they voted for.

Beelbeeb take it from me.  Life it a lot happier when you don't bother posting here for a while and, as the old TV show said, "go and do something useful instead".  



Don't get me wrong, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but the majority of leave voters will never agree with you because none of the negative consequences of what you are explaining will ever hit them, because most of them who post on this forum are retired with gold plated index linked pension income.



They will be quite happy to swallow whatever BS the government comes back with - if Brexit causes a lot of issues, they will blame it on Coronavirus or whatever other thing is going on in the news at the time and most people who voted for Brexit will lap it up.



A cursory glance around here reveals as I expected - Leave voters somehow still being very angry even though they have won and got the Brexit they wanted.  Various posters saying that they agree with free speech but then going on to imply that news sources that publish opinions they don't agree with shouldn't be allowed.... need I go on....



We lost - best thing is to give them about 10 years to completely screw everything up and then come back later.

[cromwell]

I'm perfectly over "losing".



So far pretty much everything is going as expected i.e. a shambles.



It's leavers who seem to be unable to cope with "winning".



Collectively, leavers are like the old joke about the dog that chases cars and then one day catches one.  You have no idea what to do with it and it isn't working out like you imagined.



Leave made many promises, which do you think will be honoured?



"Wait and see" seems rather like an admission that you don't have faith that many will be.

Well TBH a lot of remainers who are whingeing and whining within a short space of time of us actually leaving as they did for the three and a half years leading up to us actually going,and why do they do it? reminds me of the old joke as to why do dogs lick their balls?.....because they can.



Carry on.

[BeElBeeBub]

... it all boils down to your belief in your own superiority.

The entirety of brexit can be boiled down to a belief in the superiority of the UK and that we are somehow  exceptional and not bound by the same rules of economics and diplomacy other nations.