Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Just more bullshit that the useful leave idiots lap up.

If we had involved business, legal experts, trade negotiators etc. in the original referendum rather than politicians, we might not be in this mess.

The reality will hit home soon but how many leavers will own this shitshow and not blame the EU....not many I'll bet.

 

All the spade work has been done.  The EU is already set up as the patsy.  We'll hear nothing else but how the EU completely wrecked the chances of a deal.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, SectionDJambo said:

It’s classic diversion and misinformation. Australia is on the other side of the world. Europe is next door.

Remember when Johnson, Rees Mogg, Farage and the rest of the gang told us that Europe needed the U.K. more than the U.K. needed Europe.?How the EU always caved in at the last minute?

Trump losing his election has blown up their only plan B. 
The EU is far from perfect but I fear that we are about to find out how much of a self inflicted, xenophobic mistake this has been.

 

Biden winning should have been the lifeline to the UK side to facilitate a compromised deal.  It was perfect.  Sadly they're too feckless to have grabbed the chance.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Biden winning should have been the lifeline to the UK side to facilitate a compromised deal.  It was perfect.  Sadly they're too feckless to have grabbed the chance.

 

[Costanza]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

All the spade work has been done.  The EU is already set up as the patsy.  We'll hear nothing else but how the EU completely wrecked the chances of a deal.

Yup. Sadly so.

 

Given Johnson said a failure to do a deal would be a failure of statecraft, shouldn't he resign in order to let someone of competence do it?

That rules out his cabinet mind you.

[Norm]

Hopefully no-one has any holidays booked for the New Year.... 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/09/uk-holidaymakers-could-be-barred-from-visiting-eu-under-covid-safety-rules

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Apparently despite risk of 'no deal' being the public message from both sides, the negotiators, again on both sides were briefing journalists a deal would be done but that changed last night following the Johnson, von der Leyen dinner.

 

The guy who negotiated the Canadian, EU deal was on Lunchtime Live and said the UK would be in a better position than Canada to get a decent deal, but the UK absolutely kidding itself on that it would get an even 'decent' deal.  'Beyond niave' I think was the term he used of the UK.  (

 

Looking more likely no deal and up to a year of further negotiations.

 

Of course things may change dramatically by Sunday, but the desperation is unlikely to be on the EU side.

 

(Churchillian, sorry Basil Fawlty spirit, or is it the reverse, can only get you so far)

 

Just to note that the deal has been written.

 

It's a 900 page document. Just the 3 parts where disagreements still exist to complete. 

[Cade]

So after 4 years the same red lines on both sides are there.

 

UK is demanding all the quotas for all the fish.

 

EU is demanding legal mechanisms to tariff the UK if it tries to become a tax haven.

[Pans Jambo]

[The Mighty Thor]

Note the change in language over the last few weeks. Its gone from Australia type deal to Australia option. Johnson knows the head bangers in his party would still kick-off if they thought he'd agreed to any kind of deal at all.

 

Its no deal and they'll stretch out the announcement as long as possible to keep the markets quiet before Christmas. 

 

 

[Lone Striker]

3 hours ago, Costanza said:

The will of the people was a soft Brexit.

The Government knows full well that a hard brexit or no deal Brexit will severely damage the economy for it's citizens.

 

Servants of the people.

That's impossible to prove.   But if a soft Brexit was what the majority wanted, then Corbyn's Labour and Swinson's LibDems  ignored it by voting down Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times in the hope that they could win power and either cancel Brexit altogether or hold another referendum.      The majority of UK voters then gave Boris's hard Brexit prospectus an overwhelming thumbs up.

 

All 3 UK parties are guilty in allowing this nonsense to happen, imo

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

20 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

 

All 3 UK parties are guilty in allowing this nonsense to happen, imo

 

 

This should not be forgotten IMO.

 

Its the Tories' shit show for sure but the other pair are willing accomplices. 

[Pans Jambo]

Lol

 

[Costanza]

34 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

That's impossible to prove.   But if a soft Brexit was what the majority wanted, then Corbyn's Labour and Swinson's LibDems  ignored it by voting down Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times in the hope that they could win power and either cancel Brexit altogether or hold another referendum.      The majority of UK voters then gave Boris's hard Brexit prospectus an overwhelming thumbs up.

 

All 3 UK parties are guilty in allowing this nonsense to happen, imo

 

 

48% voted to Remain and I'm willing to bet that at least 3% of leave voters did not want a hard brexit.

Also in the last election, more than 50% of voters voted for non hard brexit parties.

 

In any case I agree with you.

The indicative vote farce was a monumental failure of the other major political parties.

[AlimOzturk]

Mind when folk thought the economic fallout from Brexit was going to be bad...

 

Mix it with Covid 19 economic disaster and the future just looks completely bleak. How they can continue this with the threat of a no deal is ludicrous. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by AlimOzturk

[Mikey1874]

23 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Lol

 

 

No matter the back and forward and different views, this Government with Johnson and Gove did indeed say it would be easy. 

[CJGJ]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

The EU is also warning that it could ban British airlines from serving European destinations unless Mr Johnson allows European fishing vessels access to UK waters.
 

these are the kind of snakes we are dealing with 

hopefully they will allow plane loads of Krankies to leave the UK before closing the airspace down and let the rest of us get on with our lives

Snakes....what world do you live in ?...sorry I forgot you are a Boris fan so it is understandable you'd be unable to grasp the workings of a divorce

 

What is all the fuss about fishermen ?....more job losses when Debenhams goes bust than there are fishermen in the UK...and many of them are very well off due to the EU policies.

Tell them to like it or lump it...they will do nothing as their rich boat owners sit back and live off the profits made whilst in the EU

[Beni]

48 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

That's impossible to prove.   But if a soft Brexit was what the majority wanted, then Corbyn's Labour and Swinson's LibDems  ignored it by voting down Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times in the hope that they could win power and either cancel Brexit altogether or hold another referendum.      The majority of UK voters then gave Boris's hard Brexit prospectus an overwhelming thumbs up.

 

All 3 UK parties are guilty in allowing this nonsense to happen, imo

 

 

 

If May's deal had passed then Britain would have stayed in the customs union unless a free trade deal had been agreed. The other parties put party before country, I hope Swinson, Corbyn and Sturgeon are happy with their statesmanship.

[Pans Jambo]

26 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

No matter the back and forward and different views, this Government with Johnson and Gove did indeed say it would be easy. 

They did. Easiest in history if I’m not mistaken.

[Lone Striker]

   Apparently the UK has signed 27 roll-over trade agreements (out of the 40 which the EU have with 3rd countries)  - such as Norway/Iceland, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada - so that the UK adopts the same terms with them which the EU has.    More being done in the remaining 3 weeks.        To be fair, they really are  the easiest trade deals in history.     ☺️ 

[Francis Albert]

36 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

   Apparently the UK has signed 27 roll-over trade agreements (out of the 40 which the EU have with 3rd countries)  - such as Norway/Iceland, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada - so that the UK adopts the same terms with them which the EU has.    More being done in the remaining 3 weeks.        To be fair, they really are  the easiest trade deals in history.     ☺️ 

How many of the 27 agreements involve access to UK fishing waters?

[Mikey1874]

The main benefit of No Deal if suppliers and distributors are on the ball is the potential for cheaper imports from countries we have no trade deal with like the US. 

 

That’s because the tariffs under No Deal (World Trade Organisation rules) have to be the same for all countries. 

 

Bad news for a lot of UK businesses. 

[Lone Striker]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

How many of the 27 agreements involve access to UK fishing waters?

I was about to say "none" .... but 2 of the  deals is with Iceland & Norway.  So if their EU deal  gave them no access to EU waters, then presumably the new UK one doesn't  either.   But if not  ......... hmmmm.... good question !!   

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, CJGJ said:

If you were stupid enough to vote for Brexit then tough luck but you voted for the points below and more

 

Imagine trusting those in charge to do a deal...Boris, Gove etc...god some of the lowest of the low in British politics

 

Imagine thinking in a divorce you will 'win' and be better off....deceit on a grand scale from the above

 

Imagine an agreement failing just because of a few fisherman etc (10 to 12,000)...their influence far outweighs their use and the size of the industry.

 

Imagine leaving the EU and thinking somehow immigration will be more easily controlled

 

Imagine thinking all will be the same come January 1st re travel abroad with no extra costs or inconvenience

 

 

Now the rest of us have to live with the decision made and voted on by many who are no longer with us or who will not be alive to live through the consequences of their actions. That may seem harsh but given they want to dump us with those consequences tough

It used to be blame the old. Now blame the dead!

 

Fishing in France is also a tiny part of their economy but it is OK for Macron to insist on the right to fish on UK waters.

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

I was about to say "none" .... but 2 of the  deals is with Iceland & Norway.  So if their EU deal  gave them no access to EU waters, then presumably the new UK one doesn't  either.   But if not  ......... hmmmm.... good question !!   

Access to EU waters isn't really much of an issue. They are heavily depleted.  But Norway and I think Iceland agree annually quotas for EU access to their waters. Just as with  the UK there is a mutual interest in that the Norwegians and  UK haven't the resources to exploit its own resources and the UK and Norway have more fish than they need.

But unlike the case of the UK the  EU accepts that they don't have sovereignty and rights  over Norwegian waters or the fish in them. 

[Lone Striker]

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

The main benefit of No Deal if suppliers and distributors are on the ball is the potential for cheaper imports from countries we have no trade deal with like the US. 

 

That’s because the tariffs under No Deal (World Trade Organisation rules) have to be the same for all countries. 

 

Bad news for a lot of UK businesses. 

Aren't  WTO rules  specified by category of product ?  Then more detailed description of items within category ?    For example    category = VEGETABLES   Item = POTATOES,   item = BROCCOLI,     etc ?

 

If we have a trade agreement with another country which specifies one of those items or ategories, it can only be at a lower tariff than the WTO figure - thats how I understand it anyway (could be wrong !!)

[Lone Striker]

22 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Access to EU waters isn't really much of an issue. They are heavily depleted.  But Norway and I think Iceland agree annually quotas for EU access to their waters. Just as with  the UK there is a mutual interest in that the Norwegians and  UK haven't the resources to exploit its own resources and the UK and Norway have more fish than they need.

But unlike the case of the UK the  EU accepts that they don't have sovereignty and rights  over Norwegian waters or the fish in them. 

So if I understand correctly what you're saying, it's likely that the Uk's rollover deal with Norway/Iceland gives them access to UK waters for  a specified number of boats and for a specified catch quota ?    I wonder what our fisherman think of that !!!

[CJGJ]

53 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

It used to be blame the old. Now blame the dead!

 

Fishing in France is also a tiny part of their economy but it is OK for Macron to insist on the right to fish on UK waters.

Given we also want to fish in French waters then I'd say yes...wouldn't you ?

 

I mean we've got to tow the boats back to France through their waters anyway with all these new 'arrivals' to our shores to be returned.....I presume that's what you voted for as well

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

So if I understand correctly what you're saying, it's likely that the Uk's rollover deal with Norway/Iceland gives them access to UK waters for  a specified number of boats and for a specified catch quota ?    I wonder what our fisherman think of that !!!

I was talking about EU access to Norwegian waters. I am not sure EU or for that matter UK access to Norwegian waters is a big issue. The UK and Norway have the fish. The EU broadly speaking doesn't or not enough at any rate.

[CavySlaveJambo]

54 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

It used to be blame the old. Now blame the dead!

 

Fishing in France is also a tiny part of their economy but it is OK for Macron to insist on the right to fish on UK waters.

There fishermen bought quotas for a period from English fishermen...  

[ri Alban]

No deal is the final key to the independence locker. Thank you Britnats, thank you very much. 

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I was talking about EU access to Norwegian waters. I am not sure EU or for that matter UK access to Norwegian waters is a big issue. The UK and Norway have the fish. The EU broadly speaking doesn't or not enough at any rate.

Post independence, do you think rUK should have access to Scottish waters. You know, the waters that makes up the vast majority of these UK waters you are so precious about. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by ri Alban

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Post independence, do you think rUK should have access to Scottish waters. You know, the waters that makes up the vast majority of these UK waters you are so precious about. 

No. Not as a matter of right. 

[Francis Albert]

20 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I was talking about EU access to Norwegian waters. I am not sure EU or for that matter UK access to Norwegian waters is a big issue. The UK and Norway have the fish. The EU broadly speaking doesn't or not enough at any rate.

Sorry. I meant to say Norwegian or UK access to EU waters is not a big issue. We and the Norwegians have the fish.

[Lone Striker]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I was talking about EU access to Norwegian waters. I am not sure EU or for that matter UK access to Norwegian waters is a big issue. The UK and Norway have the fish. The EU broadly speaking doesn't or not enough at any rate.

Since Ireland has a large chunk of territorial water  (presumably productive from a fishing point of view) - in addition to the Norway/Iceland access -  the EU fixation on having access to UK water seems less to do with fishing and more to do with reducing the UK's ability to sell into the EU.  Basically a way of giving us a bloody nose.     

 

Their unilateral contingency proposal to continue reciprocal fishing access for another year seems like another one.

[Ulysses]

17 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Feck em let’s just crack on and make sure we reciprocate with any shit they try and give us along the way

bye bye EU the gravy train is pulling out the station

Incisive comment from Blackford as usual 

Toaries bad Johnson bad 

sit doon shut up Fatty

 

[Francis Albert]

24 minutes ago, CavySlaveJambo said:

There fishermen bought quotas for a period from English fishermen...  

From UK fishermen not just English fishermen. And for how long? Forever?

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, Harry Potter said:

Suppose i am a bit biast on the subject of fishing, i had relatives fishing out of Eyemouth back in the day. 

 

HP, the total value of fish that EU boats take from UK waters is €650 million a year.

 

Irish people buy almost €1 billion worth of used cars from the UK annually.  That business alone is worth more than the fish, and it will be gone in the event of no deal.  And that is one small corner of business with one EU member state.

 

 

 

 

[Lone Striker]

17 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Post independence, do you think rUK should have access to Scottish waters. You know, the waters that makes up the vast majority of these UK waters you are so precious about. 

The concept of ownership of territorial waters around the coast of a country is set in maritime law - a minimum of 3 miles but up to 22 miles I think. It varies, probably depending on geography.    If a country has no treaties with any other country, then it has sole rights for fishing there.  Treaties between countries or blocs of countries can override that right by specifying who can fish there (and when and for which species & quantities).   Hence an Independent Scotland can decide who it signs treaties with, and whether those partners can fish or not.   Maybe with rUK, maybe with EU or both or neither.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

31 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Since Ireland has a large chunk of territorial water  (presumably productive from a fishing point of view) - in addition to the Norway/Iceland access -  the EU fixation on having access to UK water seems less to do with fishing and more to do with reducing the UK's ability to sell into the EU.  Basically a way of giving us a bloody nose.     

 

Their unilateral contingency proposal to continue reciprocal fishing access for another year seems like another one.

The UK fishing industry cannot be both a trivial part of the UK economy (Wwhich it is in the grand scheme of things) and a weapon that the EU can use to give the UK a bloody nose.

[Francis Albert]

44 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

The concept of ownership of territorial waters around the coast of a country is set in maritime law - a minimum of 3 miles but up to 22 miles I think. It varies, probably depending on geography.    If a country has no treaties with any other country, then it has sole rights for fishing there.  Treaties between countries or blocs of countries can override that right by specifying who can fish there (and when and for which species & quantities).   Hence an Independent Scotland can decide who it signs treaties with, and whether those partners can fish or not.   Maybe with rUK, maybe with EU or both or neither.

 

 

Rights in international law extend far beyond 22 miles. Up to 200 nautical miles I believe depending on proximity to other nations. 

 

The old it's Scotland's Oil slogan would have meant little with a 22 mile limit!

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

Since Ireland has a large chunk of territorial water  (presumably productive from a fishing point of view) - in addition to the Norway/Iceland access -  the EU fixation on having access to UK water seems less to do with fishing and more to do with reducing the UK's ability to sell into the EU.  Basically a way of giving us a bloody nose.     

 

Their unilateral contingency proposal to continue reciprocal fishing access for another year seems like another one.

 

A large percentage of Ireland's waters are "unproductive" because they have been set aside in a "conservation box".

 

One third of the catch taken by the Irish fishing fleet is in UK waters.  So fishing is not just an issue for the French.  That said, the real issue for the French, North Sea countries and north-western Spain seems to be more to do with local politics and the "way of life" in coastal communities, which I don't think is all that different to the political issue for the UK.

[ri Alban]

Hopefully no one is going to the EU for a holiday with a near out of date passport come Jan 1.

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

Is this deadline for a deal not just a lot of pish? 

Will the government and EU not have any further negotiations ever after it has passed and following on forever more? 

All seems a bit of a panic 

[North Road]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Sorry. I meant to say Norwegian or UK access to EU waters is not a big issue. We and the Norwegians have the fish.

That's true, we do have the fish, but the EU has the market that we want (need) to sell it too.  

 

England (in general) sells all the fish it catches and imports pretty much all the fish it eats (cod).  Scotland is slightly different in that it eats a lot of haddock which is caught in UK waters.  But Scotland also exports large parts of its quota caught stocks overseas.   

 

Coastal countries need to work together to manage the fishery and ensure fair access and trade for all -  a free for all where everyone rips up agreements and does what they want will likely lead to the bad old days of over fishing and destroying some of the stocks.

 

For some reason fisheries has become a kind of symbolic banner to flock behind that far outweighs its actual impact on economy and GDP.  That's politics I guess......

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Ma Roon said:

Is this deadline for a deal not just a lot of pish? 

Will the government and EU not have any further negotiations ever after it has passed and following on forever more? 

All seems a bit of a panic 

Of course things could continue and a deal could be reached at any time but the implications of ending the transition period without a deal on 1st January are still pretty big

[Costanza]

10 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Of course things could continue and a deal could be reached at any time but the implications of ending the transition period without a deal on 1st January are still pretty big

We could have extended the transition period during a pandemic but didn't.

Assume we could still do so even at this late stage but this Government showsno sign of that.

There are vested interests for a hard break albeit they don't involve the British people and their economic wellbeing.

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Costanza said:

We could have extended the transition period during a pandemic but didn't.

Assume we could still do so even at this late stage but this Government showsno sign of that.

There are vested interests for a hard break albeit they don't involve the British people and their economic wellbeing.

Suppose the same could be said for a soft brexit,  if ever anyany deal was agreed it is going to be last minute just down to strategy from both sides 

[manaliveits105]

Here is the deal uk - its a worse deal than we have given any other country in the world and includes the right to fish in your waters which we dont have with any other country in the world - take it or leave it .

 

Em well we do have a lot of pant wetters and krankies who would bite your hand of for that but NO 

you can shove it right up yer poop shute mes amis 

 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

One explanation of the new processes for goods

 

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2020/12/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-day-one-of-brexit

[Pans Jambo]

57 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

One explanation of the new processes for goods

 

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2020/12/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-day-one-of-brexit

Holy hell!!!

 

"I'm a Scotsman...Get me out of here"!!!