Brexit to still go ahead despite coronavirus.

[GerryT]

So far, 19 such deals , covering 50 countries or territories, have been rolled over. These deals represent just over 8% of total UK trade.



The following deals are expected to take effect at the end of the transition period, according to the Department for International Trade:



Kosovo (£8m of trade in 2018)

Jordan (£448m in 2018)

Morocco (£2.5bn in 2018)

Georgia (£123m in 2018)

Southern African nations (£10.2bn in 2018)

Tunisia (£542m in 2018)

Lebanon (£762m in 2018)

South Korea (£14.8bn in 2018)

Central America (£1.1bn in 2018)

Andean countries (£3.4bn in 2018)

Caribbean countries (£3.7bn in 2018)

Pacific Islands (£163m in 2018)

Liechtenstein (£146m in 2018)

Israel (£4.2bn in 2018)

Palestinian Authority (£41m in 2018)

Switzerland (£32.4bn in 2018)

The Faroe Islands (£252m in 2018)

Eastern and Southern Africa (£2bn in 2018)

Chile (£2bn in 2018)

The government says it is still in negotiation with a further 16 countries, including Canada and Mexico.





You seem to think the EU are in charge and they're not. The UK, Germany, France and maybe a couple more key nations will decide what deal happens. Your 2 bit nations will do what the big hitters want and if the EU try and do anything to stop German car sales or French Wine / produce sales they will find out who is in charge.

So things have progressed, and the UK may have 8% of it's trade under FTA's next yr, you say rolled over, that I would question. A 4b sweetener to south African countries doesn't sound like a deal rollover. What concessions were given to the other countries. However there are alot of very small countries on that list and they could very well be rolled over.

Regarding any trade talks between the EU and UK, yes the EU is very much the stronger partner and will be in charge. Just like any trade talks between the UK and say USA or China. The EU/USA/China is about 70% of UK trade, these are the important deals, it's over £860b.



You really don't understand the EU, just because the UK treats it's partners in the UK union doesn't mean that's what happens in the EU. Trade talks could stop if the UK continues to refuse an EU office in NI that it had agreed to in 2019, go figure, the UK going back on it's word, who would have thought.

[Nick]

How many of those deals are the exact same deals (or sometimes a bit worse) than what we already had automatically under EU membership?



All of them?  Thought so.

We don't know yet, which is why posts from Gerry categorically stating the UK will suffer are wrong.

[Nick]

What 19 countries have you ready to go FTAs, the last time I looked there was Iceland, effectively giving them total access to your fishing waters. The faroe islands, that's a big one  and a small number of south african countries that Theresa May gave 4b as an incentive, laughable.  But the situation has most likely changed, so where are these countries and what volume of trade will these represent.

It's not a bill, it's for commitments the uk has made, or do you think the uk shouldn't pay pensions of people that worked for the eu, that includes uk people. Also Future commitments the EU has made to the uk will be paid when due. If you dont like it then complain to your govt as their the ones that agreed to it. The payment is shrinking as the uk extension has ment about 7.5b a yr has been going to the EU, chipping away at your debt. The amount due in Jan will be prob less than 30b.



You seem to think the uk is in charge of the future deal, remember you are the much smaller partner, you're not laying down the law. But if the uk won't pay it's due and honour it's agreements the EU would be reluctant to sign any deal with such a country.

So far, 19 such deals , covering 50 countries or territories, have been rolled over. These deals represent just over 8% of total UK trade.



The following deals are expected to take effect at the end of the transition period, according to the Department for International Trade:



Kosovo (£8m of trade in 2018)

Jordan (£448m in 2018)

Morocco (£2.5bn in 2018)

Georgia (£123m in 2018)

Southern African nations (£10.2bn in 2018)

Tunisia (£542m in 2018)

Lebanon (£762m in 2018)

South Korea (£14.8bn in 2018)

Central America (£1.1bn in 2018)

Andean countries (£3.4bn in 2018)

Caribbean countries (£3.7bn in 2018)

Pacific Islands (£163m in 2018)

Liechtenstein (£146m in 2018)

Israel (£4.2bn in 2018)

Palestinian Authority (£41m in 2018)

Switzerland (£32.4bn in 2018)

The Faroe Islands (£252m in 2018)

Eastern and Southern Africa (£2bn in 2018)

Chile (£2bn in 2018)

The government says it is still in negotiation with a further 16 countries, including Canada and Mexico.





You seem to think the EU are in charge and they're not. The UK, Germany, France and maybe a couple more key nations will decide what deal happens. Your 2 bit nations will do what the big hitters want and if the EU try and do anything to stop German car sales or French Wine / produce sales they will find out who is in charge.

[Javert]

The UK has 19 pre agreed deals ready to go, with another 16 due defore the transition period ends so don't give me this solely on WTO rules bollox.

How many of those deals are the exact same deals (or sometimes a bit worse) than what we already had automatically under EU membership?



All of them?  Thought so.

[GerryT]

The UK has 19 pre agreed deals ready to go, with another 16 due defore the transition period ends so don't give me this solely on WTO rules bollox.



As for the 'Bill' there is nothing in law that says we have to pay for future projects that the EU has planned. If I leave a golf club that is intending to do future work costing millions I am not liable to contribute to those projects after I leave, neither is the UK.



Any money we give the EU will be based on what kind of deal we get. No deal no cash, so you can twist your europhile views any way you like. If you don't agree show us the EU (Persistant) clause in a contract to the contrary.

What 19 countries have you ready to go FTAs, the last time I looked there was Iceland, effectively giving them total access to your fishing waters. The faroe islands, that's a big one  and a small number of south african countries that Theresa May gave 4b as an incentive, laughable.  But the situation has most likely changed, so where are these countries and what volume of trade will these represent.

It's not a bill, it's for commitments the uk has made, or do you think the uk shouldn't pay pensions of people that worked for the eu, that includes uk people. Also Future commitments the EU has made to the uk will be paid when due. If you dont like it then complain to your govt as their the ones that agreed to it. The payment is shrinking as the uk extension has ment about 7.5b a yr has been going to the EU, chipping away at your debt. The amount due in Jan will be prob less than 30b.



You seem to think the uk is in charge of the future deal, remember you are the much smaller partner, you're not laying down the law. But if the uk won't pay it's due and honour it's agreements the EU would be reluctant to sign any deal with such a country.

[Nick]

I sort of agree, but see the fishing differently. The EU has given the UK their proposals on the future trade deal, part of that would be their position regarding fisheries. That's a starting point for the EU. The UK will have a similar position and the negotiations will start from there and end up hopefully with both parties happy with compromise. There will be commitments the UK and EU will have to comply to as set out under UNCLOS but in broad strokes the UK will control EU fishing in it's waters with a shared responsibility of shared stocks.

It would help if the UK provided the EU with detail on their detailed future trade deal proposals.





You still don't understand the "bill" or "gift" is actually the UK paying what they owe. It doesn't matter how you leave that will be paid, if politicians say it won't their bullsh1ting and scoring points.

If going on WTO was so good how come the UK is the only country (bar 1) that will trade solely under WTO. The vast majority of trading is done under FTA's, the UK will in time get these setup.

I'd like to see that full facts report. From the attached 2018 UK exports £291b and imports £357b totalling 647b with a GDP of £2.11T. That's 30.66% of UK GDP involved with the EU, is that not more relevant than 6% of UK companies. That only counts trade with the EU, factor in the trade the UK does with the world under trade deals the EU has, which brexit also rips up. I think your underestimating the impact.



https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/">https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-7851/">https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/">https://www.statista.com/statistics/281 ... ince-2000/">https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/

The UK has 19 pre agreed deals ready to go, with another 16 due defore the transition period ends so don't give me this solely on WTO rules bollox.



As for the 'Bill' there is nothing in law that says we have to pay for future projects that the EU has planned. If I leave a golf club that is intending to do future work costing millions I am not liable to contribute to those projects after I leave, neither is the UK.



Any money we give the EU will be based on what kind of deal we get. No deal no cash, so you can twist your europhile views any way you like. If you don't agree show us the EU (Persistant) clause in a contract to the contrary.

[GerryT]

That not true Gerry. The UK merely wishes, ( as should the EU), for an agreeable Trade Deal that satisfies BOTH sides, via a typical mutually advantageous Free Trade Agreement between TWO Parties.  

However, if the UK is to be CORRECTLY viewed by the EU as a truly independent body then it shouldn't ridiculously insist on imposing EU regulations which the UK would be obliged to accept. Insisting on having the 'right' to fish in each other's territories has nothing whatsoever to do with trade. It isn't just a matter of meeting 'standards' either, which is an international requirement for the export of  goods, which inevitably have  to meet the standards required by the intended customer, and these  clearly vary amongst the many different customers.

The EU will of course view the UK as an independent country, they do at the moment. The EU has it's way of doing business so if the UK wants to sell product to the EU then those goods have to adhere to EU standards and rules. The UK as an independent country can make the decision to trade or not to, totally the UK's choice as an independent country.

I never said the EU would have a right to fish in UK waters. If the UK's position is no EU fishing boat will fish in UK waters then the EU will totally respect that, but the EU may in negotiations offer a concession to the UK in return for being allowed to fish in UK waters, which may involve quotas.

In addition, how many EU/other nation(s) trading agreements require 'level playing fields' , never mind the imposition of regulations, and a disputes resolution system via a 'court' that is totally associated with ONE of the Parties.

Honestly I don't know, but that's all for negotiation. There has to be a dispute resolution mechanism and through discussion a solution will be found. But the UK different to say Canada, because the UK wants a far more comprehensive deal and that requires tighter cooperation. Also geographically the UK will be treated differently to Canada. This was all explained in 2016 but I haven't see any detail from the UK showing a counter offer other than "they need us more than we need them"

It is ridiculous for anyone to claim that the UK alone has a 'problem ' to solve.....agreements are only made with mutual consent, and one-sided requirements usually make mutual agreement impossible. International Trade  'norms' between Independent bodies are fairly standard - and don't contain the ridiculous conditions the EU appear to wish to impose.

It's very obviously a UK problem or issue, what ever tag you want to put on it. The UK (quite correctly) didn't discuss brexit with the EU, it was a unilateral decision. It also didn't have anything prepared to discuss with the EU on a future trade deal, in fact the UK has left and still hasn't provided any detail to the EU for what it want's in a trade deal, very irresponsible when you think about it.

The UK left the EU and has to own where they end up. The EU is open and willing to discuss a future relationship, the EU has provided very detailed info on what it would like to get from that, the EU has accommodated the UK with any extension it has requested. Yet the UK hasn't actually done much to Barnier's frustrations.

However, it would appear that  the EU is intent on making an irrational 'approach' to the negotiations, and endorsing the stupid claims of barmy Barnier.....but the whole situation can, and indeed, may have to be resolved by Boris sticking to his guns and actually leaving WITHOUT a formal trade deal.

Whats your understanding of irrational ?

I would certainly hope THAT action is taken rather than acceding to the EU's demands - because the UK taxpayer will immediately reap billions in benefit, which will help tremendously in view of the huge economic hit caused by the covid virus - and the UK fishing industry will start to thrive again as the UK again becomes TRULY independent.

The EU has zero demands, just a position paper of what it wants. In other words setting out it's stall in a trade negotiation, is that not what you normally do ? Show me where the EU has made demands because you won't be able to. Reap billions, you do know that brexit has cost the UK 130b so far and your still in the EU port of shelter, whats going to happen after your out, show me how you'll reap billions.

[GerryT]

Can we see these documents that you are obviously privy to?

I think this is it, all public information. The UK brough some slides, powerpoint I think, gave a hard copy to the EU to look at but wouldn't let them keep them.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/200318-draft-agreement-gen.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... nt-gen.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/200318-draft-agreement-gen.pdf



This on fisheries which I think are extracts from above

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/seminar-20200114-fisheries.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... heries.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/seminar-20200114-fisheries.pdf



And lots of other extracts you may like to look at. Basically alot of public info from the EU. What's the UK got ? "brexit means brexit"

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit- ... kingdom_en">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en

As for crashing out, there are 7.2 billion people outside the EU so no, we are crashing into the rest of the world not out of the 380 million in the EU. 🎣

Your leaving the EU and any FTA the EU has with the rest of the world. In terms of value, market size, why don't you tell me how much the EU and it's trade deals covers out of the world economy, counting people isn't very representative of what trade you will do post brexit.

[Stevlin]

Another way of looking at it is we (UK & rest of EU members) were all in a club that broke down trade barriers and agreed common rules/regulations to allow services and goods to flow seamlessly, no where else on the globe does this to such a degree. Now, the UK looks to leave the EU and in accordance with the referendum wish, has decided to follow it's own trade rules/regulations as INDEPENDENT nations do.

 So far so good, and even though each side may have to 'compromise' to reach a mutual  agreement on a future trade deal, that should not require 'regulatory' control, and especially one-sided control at that.

  The UK has been pushing for a close trade relationship (no tariffs/access for services/share security etc...) but doesn't wish to accept the EU non-trade related demands,  to make this happen - such as level playing field/one sided ECJ oversight etc... It's totally a UK decision, a basic trade deal means zero, or at least far less alignment for mere trade. The UK govt promised much to the UK electorate, which excluded much of the EU demands, which remain unacceptable to the UK.

 Getting out by January has always been the really easy thing to do, leaving with a good relationship and close trade relationship with the EU at the same time is the tricky bit. But it's a UK problem to solve, the UK unilaterally decided to leave and unilaterally triggered A50, it will need to come up with a soltion to the problem, it really is a UK problem to solve.

That not true Gerry. The UK merely wishes, ( as should the EU), for an agreeable Trade Deal that satisfies BOTH sides, via a typical mutually advantageous Free Trade Agreement between TWO Parties.  

However, if the UK is to be CORRECTLY viewed by the EU as a truly independent body then it shouldn't ridiculously insist on imposing EU regulations which the UK would be obliged to accept. Insisting on having the 'right' to fish in each other's territories has nothing whatsoever to do with trade. It isn't just a matter of meeting 'standards' either, which is an international requirement for the export of  goods, which inevitably have  to meet the standards required by the intended customer, and these  clearly vary amongst the many different customers.

 In addition, how many EU/other nation(s) trading agreements require 'level playing fields' , never mind the imposition of regulations, and a disputes resolution system via a 'court' that is totally associated with ONE of the Parties.



It is ridiculous for anyone to claim that the UK alone has a 'problem ' to solve.....agreements are only made with mutual consent, and one-sided requirements usually make mutual agreement impossible. International Trade  'norms' between Independent bodies are fairly standard - and don't contain the ridiculous conditions the EU appear to wish to impose.  



However, it would appear that  the EU is intent on making an irrational 'approach' to the negotiations, and endorsing the stupid claims of barmy Barnier.....but the whole situation can, and indeed, may have to be resolved by Boris sticking to his guns and actually leaving WITHOUT a formal trade deal.



I would certainly hope THAT action is taken rather than acceding to the EU's demands - because the UK taxpayer will immediately reap billions in benefit, which will help tremendously in view of the huge economic hit caused by the covid virus - and the UK fishing industry will start to thrive again as the UK again becomes TRULY independent.

[GerryT]

The issue is fairly simple to grasp...the EU, on the face of it, are not prepared to accept the UK enacting what the referendum demanded, which was to be totally free of the EU. The result of being completely independent of the EU REQUIRES the UK to act as a completely independent nation, meaning NO political ties with the EU whatsoever.

The EU however, wish to retain the basis of trade via their regulatory rules....established in accordance with their 'politically' motivated set of EU established trade regulations and other 'requirements'...including ridiculously allowing the EU to retain right of access to UK fishing territories.  Politically, the UK cannot accept such a mandatory requirement, so unless the EU drop their insistence on that proviso, then the UK might just as well terminate the negotiations and leave without a trade deal.

I sort of agree, but see the fishing differently. The EU has given the UK their proposals on the future trade deal, part of that would be their position regarding fisheries. That's a starting point for the EU. The UK will have a similar position and the negotiations will start from there and end up hopefully with both parties happy with compromise. There will be commitments the UK and EU will have to comply to as set out under UNCLOS but in broad strokes the UK will control EU fishing in it's waters with a shared responsibility of shared stocks.

It would help if the UK provided the EU with detail on their detailed future trade deal proposals.

Undoubtedly, that will be initially far more painful to the UK than it would  to the EU...but we are already 'up to our eyeballs' as it is with our economical outlook, and at least we could save on that ridiculous £39 bill 'gift' to the EU. Leaving without a deal is small fry compared to the Covid 19 problems , as only about 6% of UK businesses are involved with EU trade, ( according to Full Facts),  so just lets get out NOW , and trade on WTO terms.....there are a lot more  markets on offer than the EU.....even if they are not as close.....and they are certainly apolitical....which provides a more suitable, and sensible  basis for trading.

You still don't understand the "bill" or "gift" is actually the UK paying what they owe. It doesn't matter how you leave that will be paid, if politicians say it won't their bullsh1ting and scoring points.

If going on WTO was so good how come the UK is the only country (bar 1) that will trade solely under WTO. The vast majority of trading is done under FTA's, the UK will in time get these setup.

I'd like to see that full facts report. From the attached 2018 UK exports £291b and imports £357b totalling 647b with a GDP of £2.11T. That's 30.66% of UK GDP involved with the EU, is that not more relevant than 6% of UK companies. That only counts trade with the EU, factor in the trade the UK does with the world under trade deals the EU has, which brexit also rips up. I think your underestimating the impact.



https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/">https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-7851/">https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/">https://www.statista.com/statistics/281 ... ince-2000/">https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/

[GerryT]

Not really blaming the EU Gerry they have there standpoint and we have ours which are some way apart . The EU are bound by regulation that doesn't give them much wriggle room and the UK is bound by its promises to the UK voter that they will deliver on certain issues and be out by next January.

Another way of looking at it is we (UK & rest of EU members) were all in a club that broke down trade barriers and agreed common rules/regulations to allow services and goods to flow seamlessly, no where else on the globe does this to this degree. Now the UK leaves and looks to follow it's own trade rules/regulations and oversight. So far so good, until we get to a agreeing future trade deal, up till now the UK has been pushing for a close trade relationship (no tariffs/access for services/share security etc...) but doesn't want any of the enablers to make this happen, such as level playing field/ECJ oversight/Good Friday agreement etc... It's totally a UK decision, a basic trade deal means less alignment. The UK govt promised a lot to the UK people some of which is un-deliverable, like the 350m a week a very obvious one, free trade without close ties less obvious but becoming clearer as talks limp on. Getting out by January has always been the really easy thing to do, leaving with a good relationship and close trade relationship with the EU at the same time is the tricky bit. But it's a UK problem to solve, the UK unilaterally decided to leave and unilaterally triggered A50, it will need to come up with a solution to the problem, it really is a UK problem to solve.

[Nick]

Well firstly, yes you can do whatever you want, but, you can then not complain if EU markets are closed to the fish caught and nobody in the UK wants to buy them either, and you also can't complain if UK fishing fleet is banned from EU country waters.  Strict enforcement of sovereign fishing waters is perfectly legal but comes with consequences.



As regards firing missiles, I'm sure, or at least hope, that this is a humorous comment.  



However, I know many UK people don't seem to understand this, but the UK's military capability is pretty small, even compared to what it was in 1982 when we (by the skin of our teeth) reclaimed the Falkland Islands.



Any armed conflict between the UK and EU would result in the UK losing, especially if it was started off by the UK committing war crimes by using excessive force in firing on other nations' fishing vessels, because the EU would get full support from other free and civilised nations globally.

Seriously!!



If the French don't buy the fish off us, who are they going to buy it off?  Why do you think Macron is so upset about the rights? Think you better check out the UK versus French fishing territories.



https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.3148818.1499632272!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg">

[Barry]

Of course it is mostly in jest, Javert, but when a nation's sovereignty is breached we tend to strike people off the Christmas card list.

Having said that, we lost the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars">Cod Wars with Iceland.



I'm all for the UK enforcing its fishing borders. If other countries wish to fish our waters, after Brexit they will have to pay for the privilege.

And we will have to pay to fish in their waters, or just buy the fish they have caught. It's fair trade.

[Javert]

One of these could be more appropriate, but may cause offence.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/AGM-84_Harpoon_launched_from_USS_Leahy_%28CG-16%29.jpg">

Well firstly, yes you can do whatever you want, but, you can then not complain if EU markets are closed to the fish caught and nobody in the UK wants to buy them either, and you also can't complain if UK fishing fleet is banned from EU country waters.  Strict enforcement of sovereign fishing waters is perfectly legal but comes with consequences.



As regards firing missiles, I'm sure, or at least hope, that this is a humorous comment.  



However, I know many UK people don't seem to understand this, but the UK's military capability is pretty small, even compared to what it was in 1982 when we (by the skin of our teeth) reclaimed the Falkland Islands.



Any armed conflict between the UK and EU would result in the UK losing, especially if it was started off by the UK committing war crimes by using excessive force in firing on other nations' fishing vessels, because the EU would get full support from other free and civilised nations globally.

[Nick]

One of these could be more appropriate, but may cause offence.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/AGM-84_Harpoon_launched_from_USS_Leahy_%28CG-16%29.jpg">

You buy it, I'll fire it 😂