Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)
Options
Comments
-
That's all very noble Rob.
But guess what?
The EU also has a responsibility to all of its member states and its 450m citizens, to also "stick up" for itself.
This means not allowing an untrustworthy 3rd country create an existential crisis for an institution that has provided peace and prosperity for all of us.0 -
Call me Al wrote: »That's all very noble Rob.
But guess what?
The EU also has a responsibility to all of its member states and its 450m citizens, to also "stick up" for itself.
This means not allowing an untrustworthy 3rd country create an existential crisis for an institution that has provided peace and prosperity for all of us.
Nothing to do with being noble-just about sticking up for itself in impending negotiations-obviously the EU has the upper hand unless the UK walks away(which I hope it doesn't!)when the EU doesn't have any control.0 -
Fishing is actually one of the areas where the UK has a (relatively) strong hand in dealing with the EU. This arises because so much of the North Sea fishing grounds lie within the UK zone.. . . . I believe the UK will negotiate with the EU about things like fishing access but I'll be very surprised if the UK allows itself to be pushed around by the EU over that-its not about bean counting its about sticking up for themselves in the impending negotiations.
But a great deal depends on what you mean by the UK "allowing itself to be pushed around" over fishing.
When you have relatively few good cards, you need to think carefully about how to play the ones you have to best advantage. The UK is going to face a difficult dilemma here; is it going to use its relative strength in relation to fisheries to try and meet the expectations that people have in relation to fishing, post-Brexit? Or is it going to leverage its strength on fisheries to secure concessions in other areas that would actually be much more valuable to the UK, and to the UK economy? It's not going to be able to do both.
If it chooses to do the latter, will you take the view that the UK has been "pushed around"" Or that it has cannily played the cards it has to best advantage?0 -
Very good....that sounds a couple of rings down from declaring war![Deleted User] wrote: »If the EU wants the UK to actually follow the Withdrawal Agreement, the cost of not doing so should be absolutely devastating. Sanctions and embargoes, and in the event of a hard border in Ireland, sanctions on any country the UK makes a deal with. No Deal should look amazing in comparison.0 -
Strong hand or not, obsessing about fishing is a bit like being fixated about the texture of the photocopier paper while your mid sized multinational business empire goes up in smoke around you.
It’s myopic beyond belief.
Priorities ?!
The UK isn’t Iceland, a country that has a huge fishing industry and a population that’s significantly smaller than County Cork, yet I see regular tabloid references to Iceland as a model for the UK, which is 182 times bigger than it.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Withdrawal Agreement is a binding international treaty, and the EU has an obvious interest in not allowing the impression to develop that you can sign a treaty with the EU, immediately violate it, and expect this to be overlooked.Deleted User wrote: »If the EU wants the UK to actually follow the Withdrawal Agreement, the cost of not doing so should be absolutely devastating. Sanctions and embargoes, and in the event of a hard border in Ireland, sanctions on any country the UK makes a deal with. No Deal should look amazing in comparison.
But.
Even without the EU taking enforcement measures, the UK would pay a high price for violating the treaty - enormous reputational damage, a reluctance by any other country to take them seriously as a potential treaty partner, and of course a no-trade-deal Brexit for which the UK is (still) woefully unprepared. Those factors alone will put enormous pressure on the UK either not to breach the treaty or to remedy any breach fairly quickly, without the EU having to do anything so crass as impose sanctions.
Besides, the EU doesn't have to decide or announce what they would do at this point. They can wait until the UK actually does violate or repudiate the treaty, and then take action. Announcing in advance the sanctions you would impose if this were to happen raises the temperature and exposes the EU to accusations of bullying, undermining the negotations, bringing about the very thing they claim they want to prevent, etc, etc. While, as far as I can see, there are no advantages at all for the EU to go around bloviating about what they would do if the UK were to breach the treaty.0 -
Using Canada as a comparison is strange as the EU has said that the UK can't have the same deal as Canada despite saying they could previously.Canada and the EU have far more similar political outlooks in many respects than the Tories and the EU.
The Canadians and EU also entered discussions with a positive outlook and no hostilities and negotiated in absolute good faith with a shared vision of what the outcome might be like.
The UK is basically openly hostile to the EU, behaves irrationally and negotiates in bad faith. So I’m not really sure that ten years is an unreasonable estimate.
The fact that the UK has regulatory alignment should make it easier but the Tories see those alignments as something to be torn up and destroyed and not as any kind of asset. The goalposts have also shifted from an early Brexit that seemed to be more like the EEA type arrangement to burning all the bridges. So it’s far from the days of the world’s easiest trade deal.0 -
The EU is extremely unlikely to take trade sanctions, unless the UK were to take them and they were reciprocal. However, it is very likely to just sit and just not do anything as the treaty has been ignored.
The agressive party in this is the UK, not the EU and you can’t act in bad faith in international treaties and trade discussions and expect to maintain a reputation as a trustworthy trade partner.
The result of this could be a lost decade or more for the UK as some future government(s) have to rebuild trust and relationships and clean up the mess that’s being created now.0 -
Using Canada as a comparison is strange as the EU has said that the UK can't have the same deal as Canada despite saying they could previously.
Many of the Tories’ red lines would actually now exclude a CETA like arrangement. There are numerous aspects of CETA that the UK would seem to be opposed to and there are genuine issues like the Irish border, EU citizens rights, freedom of movement and so on which are not issues with Canada.
There’s a legacy of a complex relationship being undone with the UK. CETA is a new relationship with a distant country on trade only.
Also they’re making references in the UK media to an Australia like real, when such a deal doesn’t yet exist.
If you listen to David Davis for example, the UK approach was to take all the bits of EU-3rd country trade deals that they liked, cut them out and reassemble them into a proposal taking only the best bits that suited the UK. Then when that was rejected, go on a rant about how the EU has agreed these with 3rd parties and why can’t we do that, completely ignoring the reciprocation, the differences in trade flows and every other nuance.
It was bizarre and extremely arrogant cherry picking stuff.
What’s coming across here is that the UK has a notion that it has some God given right to access to the EU market on its terms and that anyone who says no is being agressive or obstructionist. That’s simply not now the world works.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The EU didn't previously say that the UK could have the same deal as Canada; they just pointed out that the UK's red lines precluded all the principal models except Canada, meaning a Canada-type deal was the only one the UK could plausibly seek (Unless it changed its red lines. The point of the famous "steps" slide was not to show what the EU would offer the UK, but to show what the UK was ruling out, and therefore to encourage the UK to review its red lines.)Using Canada as a comparison is strange as the EU has said that the UK can't have the same deal as Canada despite saying they could previously.
If the UK wants to know if they can have the same deal as Canada, they need to ask for the same deal as Canada. So far, they have neither asked for the same deal as Canada, nor indicated that they are going to - all the talk has been about Canada plus, Canada plus plus, and even Canada plus plus plus.
We know, of course, that they will not get the same deal as Canada, for the obvious reason that they are not Canada, their situation relative to the EU is quite different from Canada's, and all of the EU deals are custom-negotiated; they have never replicated a trade deal with one country for an entirely different country (and, so far as I know, they have never been asked to).0 -
Is the obsession with fishing because it relates to territory, an emotive subject at the best of times, and one the government believes will keep the public on side as they seek to take back control?
Well they do have a popular imperial song about ruling the waves. So I think it’s safe to assume it’s in the repertoire of tabloid jingoism and nationalism.0 -
Partly that, and partly that the government is afraid to disappoint public expectations as regards fishing. Governments threaten their popularity if they are seen to be unsupportive of characters who frequently appear in children's books - farmers, fishermen and railway locomotives.Is the obsession with fishing because it relates to territory, an emotive subject at the best of times, and one the government believes will keep the public on side as they seek to take back control?0 -
I think the other aspect of this that is not being understood in the UK is that it has left the EU. From a European institution perspective, what goes on in British tabloids or in domestic UK politics is largely no longer of any relevance beyond just external trade policy and impact on EU citizens living in the UK.
It’s no longer a member state, nor is it an accession state, so it’s really going to be a rather dramatic change of level of interest.
It’s seems a little like someone who presented their partner with divorce papers and was expecting them to beg them to stay, but instead got greeted with “oh well, that’s a pity. Just pop them on my desk and I’ll sign them and have them back to you tomorrow! Best of luck with your new life”. Then just moved on and stopped paying attention and began changing the door locks.
The result has been a ranting and raving ex partner who seems to be wondering why they no longer have any powers of manipulation and why they’ve been cut loose so coldly.
I really think there’s a cold, rather dispassionately technocratic reality check on its way and it’s not going to be easy to interpret through tabloid rage headlines.
It looks like the choices are either negotiate positively and in good faith or go off rant and sulk and be ignored. There’s a deal to be done, but not at any cost and certainly not a rushed bad deal.
The EU, by it’s nature and how it operates, just doesn’t really do passionate political interaction. It’ll be slow, deliberate, detail focused processes all occurring within the scope of a negotiation mandate agreed by 27 countries.
If you try to push that faster or bully and bluster it doesn’t really have any impact, particularly when you’ve limited leverage other than threatening things that would hurt you a lot more than the EU.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,296 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16324
Except minor things such as any fish can not be imported (has to be part of an EU approved fishing plan), no import of radioactive materials (UK is not authorized outside the EU agency for imports of it), airplanes not being allowed to fly to Europe (not certified safe) etc. There's plenty of ways EU will still be in control if UK walks away and it will become very painfully obvious in a day or two on the ground as well when NHS has to stop cancer treatments, factories have to shut down etc.Nothing to do with being noble-just about sticking up for itself in impending negotiations-obviously the EU has the upper hand unless the UK walks away(which I hope it doesn't!)when the EU doesn't have any control.0 -
I'm totally against brexit,I intensely dislike and distrust the current UK government.I truely believe the UK should willing align with EU standards now brexit is going to happen.
Apart from that though,I'm British-I want the UK to remain united and hopefully come through this relatively unscathed-that may differ from the general consensus of the majority of posters on this thread and I accept that which is why I stuck around whilst the majority of British posters gave up.
I believe the UK will negotiate with the EU about things like fishing access but I'll be very surprised if the UK allows itself to be pushed around by the EU over that-its not about bean counting its about sticking up for themselves in the impending negotiations.
I am with you down to the bolded bit, and I am also British, though away for so long that I hardly feel it counts.
However I feel you are still not 'getting it' in the last part. Will the Uk allow itself to be pushed around? The UK has left Europe; they are not so much being pushed around as negotiating with an organisation that has no reason to be gentle.
They have cost the EU a great deal of time and patience over the last few years and have not shown themselves to be particularly rational or reasonable. The result is not the EU pushing them around, its the EU looking after its own.
Sure they British have to stick up for themselves in the impending negotiations, but so does everyone, there is no reason at all for EU to give them an easy ride, or to give them any more than common courtesy and a deal that suits the EU. The EU has no more responsibility or obligation to the UK, they wanted to be free, now they are, and they have to get on with it.
It reminds me a bit of a teen throwing a strop and claiming they are being bossed about and misunderstood, and they are going to get a flat and live on their own. Then the first weekend they come back with a bag full of washing expecting that it will be washed and dried and folded and ironed, the way it always effortlessly was before.0 -
@looksee:
I think that’s a huge part of the problem. The UK is still thinking of itself as the plucky but awkward member of the club. They historically got a lot of exemptions by demanding them from within but there was always solidarity with other members, no matter how demanding they might have been.
The EU’s internal focus was always to maintain flows of trade, build links, find common ground and maintain good relations between member states. There’s a core objective to build connections and work in the interest of all members.
The UK pulled the plug and has left and is no longer a member, but just a disruptive neighbouring state that frankly is resembling Russia in terms of how it’s doing diplomacy more than Norway or Switzerland.
So basically it’s gone from the demanding member to being an unpredictable external threat.
That’s a massive change of position and relationship, yet there still seems to be an expectation in the UK that they should be treated as a member of the club. I’m particularly seeing this in the expectation of continuity of access to financial markets and so on. They’ve made themselves as relevant to the EU as Singapore or Wall Street and that’s by their own choice.
There’s a dissonance between on the one hand wanting to be treated as a close partner and on the other making threats and throwing punches.
Ultimately it’s not the EU that will decide the nature of the future relationship. It’s down to whether the UK wants to play ball with a neighbour or not, beyond that the UK no longer has any role in the EU and that’s precisely what the British electorate voted for.0 -
I am with you down to the bolded bit, and I am also British, though away for so long that I hardly feel it counts.
However I feel you are still not 'getting it' in the last part. Will the Uk allow itself to be pushed around? The UK has left Europe; they are not so much being pushed around as negotiating with an organisation that has no reason to be gentle.
They have cost the EU a great deal of time and patience over the last few years and have not shown themselves to be particularly rational or reasonable. The result is not the EU pushing them around, its the EU looking after its own.
Sure they British have to stick up for themselves in the impending negotiations, but so does everyone, there is no reason at all for EU to give them an easy ride, or to give them any more than common courtesy and a deal that suits the EU. The EU has no more responsibility or obligation to the UK, they wanted to be free, now they are, and they have to get on with it.
It reminds me a bit of a teen throwing a strop and claiming they are being bossed about and misunderstood, and they are going to get a flat and live on their own. Then the first weekend they come back with a bag full of washing expecting that it will be washed and dried and folded and ironed, the way it always effortlessly was before.
I've said many times I'd prefer to follow EU standards and as you say,the EU isn't a benevolent organisation that has any obligations to the UK which as you point out is a 3rd party.No one expects kid gloves treatment it's well documented the lengths the EU will go to to control situations-I believe the UK will walk away and take the fallout rather than agree to what is pretty reasonable in my eyes(following EU standards).
Ads bygoogle's earlier post on what approach the EU should take isn't that far from the truth. If they think they can crush the UK as they are doing to Greece,they will.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/a-greek-tragedy-how-the-eu-is-destroying-a-country/0 -
Nobody has any interest in “crushing the UK”. What would be the point?
The EU has obviously got its own interests at heart but it’s also fundamentally a cooperative organisation which was founded on an objective of creating peace and stability in Europe.
The likely outcome is that it will just ignore and tolerate the UK. It’s just not going to bend over backwards to facilitate unreasonableness.
Who knows? Give it a decade or so and you might have a more pragmatic UK government and a completely different and more positive bilateral relationship in place.
The global realities will have changed too. Trump will be gone and how he goes remains to be seen. US politics may be a lot more benign and sensible. China may well have grown further or may have become unstable - again unknown, but it’s very likely the EU will still be around, ticking over without much controversy beyond its usual groans.
So I’m tending to see this in a longer time frame than the life of the current UK government and this period of jingoistic politics.
Ultimately, pragmatism will probably re-emerge.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Fishing is actually one of the areas where the UK has a (relatively) strong hand in dealing with the EU.
This, of course, is why there is so much noise about it.
Meanwhile services, manufacturing and farming are all going to get hammered by the loss of membership of the Single Market and EU payments, so there is much less talk from the British about those areas.0 -
Advertisement
-
We all express our opinions here,some different from the majority which as long as done respectfully and within boards guidelines makes for a more interesting thread imo-or am I wrong?Zubeneschamali wrote: »This, of course, is why there is so much noise about it.
Meanwhile services, manufacturing and farming are all going to get hammered by the loss of membership of the Single Market and EU payments, so there is much less talk from the British about those areas.
I'd definitely settle for a VERY close relationship with the EU-I believe its sometimes referred to as BRINO which I realise isn't as good as what the UK had before but there's nothing I can do about that.
My opinion that the UK won't compromise on certain things in negotiations doesn't mean I agree with that- I just believe I know my own country and what would be viewed as acceptable-that attitude may well be extremely detrimental to the UK but one the country (or should I say people who voted for brexit/tories)is willing to accept.0 -
Nobody here is being disrespectful of your opinions Rob.
Or to the UK when they point out that these red lines are going to become the sword upon which they will perish..
I accept your assertion that there are certain aspects of brexit that are fundamental to the 52%, but jingoism and nationalism won't put food on the tables of the average joe in working or middle-class Britain.
By not explaining the limitations of the position they find themselves in, and insisting that everyone simply needs to "believe" harder to "get brexit done", the UK government are doing a huge disservice to their citizens.0 -
Meanwhile Barnier received a Doctorate Honoris Causa yesterday from his old alma mater, the ESCP in Paris. His speech there contained no surprises but made the EU‘s position quite clear. He graduated there in 1972, one year before the UK entered the EU.
https://twitter.com/michelbarnier/status/1232770828154134530?s=21
Most probably he never expected to be the negotiator of a Brexit a few decades later. His speech there starts with the WAB and the NI protocol. A few quotes...It took us three years to negotiate the separation.
We endeavoured to address many uncertainties directly linked to this separation.
For EU citizens living in the UK and British nationals living in EU countries.
For promoters of projects financed by the EU.
And, crucially, for Ireland and Northern Ireland, where what was at stake was not just the economy and trade but peace and stability too.
The Withdrawal Agreement that came into force on 1 February 2020 settles all these points. It will allow the orderly dismantling of 47 years of economic and political integration, which is what the UK wanted.
Since 1 February, the UK is a third country. It no longer has members in this Parliament, no longer has a seat in the Council of Ministers and no longer has a European Commissioner.
....
During the transition period...
We must now make the best possible use of this short period of stability.
To implement the Withdrawal Agreement precisely and rigorously, in particular the provisions concerning citizens and Ireland and Northern Ireland.
To prepare for the new situation that will come into being on 1 January 2021.
And to conduct a second negotiation, one on our future relationship with the UK.
....
What does this new partnership consist of?
The political declaration, which we agreed with Boris Johnson's government on 17 October 2019, just four months ago, is unprecedented in its scope and ambition.
It covers not just economic aspects but also security and defence issues.
On the economic front, it envisages a partnership going well beyond trade in goods and covering services, investment, intellectual property and public procurement, as well as energy, transport and fisheries, among other areas.
Lastly, at the heart of this economic partnership it provides for:
o On the one hand, an ambitious free trade agreement, with no tariffs or quotas on any goods, including agricultural and fishery products.
o On the other, solid guarantees for a level playing field.
....
As a member of the EU, the UK was central in reshaping the EU's trade policy, turning it into a tool to lift millions out of poverty, and to promote sustainability and fairness around the world.
How would we explain it if our future partnership with the UK did not now follow this same philosophy?
How credible would we be going into the next COP26 meeting, in Glasgow, if our future agreement allows businesses to cut corners on environmental and social rights for the sake of gaining market shares?
Of course, we have heard Prime Minister Johnson's assurances that the UK would never engage in a race to the bottom;
that it would not seek to undermine European standards;
that the UK would in fact maintain higher standards than the EU.
And we are ready to believe this.
In fact, I do not believe that the UK will become some sort of ‘Singapore on Thames'.
But that means it should not be a problem for the UK to agree on a number of ground rules.
Till here everything seems to be understood all around. But then Barnier is talking straight.I want to be very clear here:
We understand that the UK wants its own rulebook.
We respect that choice – the UK's sovereign choice.
We know that was the whole point of leaving the EU.
However, there are no two ways about it:
Every preferential trade agreement sets terms and conditions for opening up markets.Our agreements with Turkey and Ukraine, and the recent one with Switzerland, include comprehensive provisions on competition and state aid.
Our deals with Canada, Japan, Korea foresee non-regression clauses on environmental and labour standards, as well as rules on subsidies and safeguards.
Each of these agreements contains tailored provisions, targeting specific areas of cooperation – or concern – with that partner.
And each of these agreements has enforcement mechanisms that are proportionate to the level playing field risks posed by that partner.
The logic is simple:
If you are a member of the EU, you get frictionless access to a market of 450 million consumers.
If you have no preferential trade agreement with the EU, you get access like any third country under standard WTO regime.
If you're somewhere in between, you get something in between.
But there is no single template. There never was and there never will be.
One can not be more clear about the position of the EU. Oh...wait...The UK says it wants ‘Canada'. But the problem with that is that the UK is not Canada.
And, by the way, Canada never told us they wanted a ‘South Korea' deal.
Our relationships with the UK and with Canada are worlds' apart:
A flight from Brussels to London takes 70 minutes.
A flight from Brussels to Ottawa takes over 10 hours.
EU27 trade with Canada reached 55 billion euro in 2018.
That sounds like a lot. But our trade with the UK was worth well over 500 billion euro. Nearly ten times more!
So, of course, our deals with Canada or with other countries give us reference points.But we need to tailor each agreement to the reality of our relationship with each partner.
We are ready to offer the UK ‘super-preferential' access to our markets:
A level of access that would be unprecedented for a developed country.
And this with a direct competitor that is right on our doorstep,
and whose supply chains are today deeply intertwined with our own after decades of single market integration.
Is this really something we can do without firm guarantees that the UK will respect a level playing field and avoid unfair competitive advantages?
The answer, I'm afraid, is simple: We cannot.
He then shows up the final consequences of Brexit in black and white without any decoration. His three examples are quite impressive. Especially the consequences for the from the UK long neglected financial services sector. The passporting rights are gone anyway whatever kind of a deal will be reached or not till end of 2020.During its 47 years of membership, the UK built up a privileged position in a number of strategic areas:
financial services, of course, but also as a regulatory and certification hub, and a major entry point into the EU single market.
In great part, this was made possible by the fact that the UK was an EU Member State, within the single market.
But the UK has decided to leave this single market, the customs union, and all the EU's international agreements.
It no longer wishes to participate to our common ecosystem of rules, supervision and enforcement mechanisms.
This choice will have consequences as of 1January 2021, even if we reach a deal with the UK on our future relationship.
....
1/ First of all, regarding imports from the UK:
On 1 January 2021, whatever the outcome of the negotiation, there will be checks and controls on all UK goods entering the single market – as there are for any third country.
The EU must be able to assess risks on any product coming into its market and, if necessary, activate physical controls.These checks are particularly important given the UK's position as a major entry point into the single market.
As part of these checks, we will need to pay the greatest attention to the rules of origin that we will put in our trade agreement.
Of course we love made in Britain!
But we must have guarantees that the goods we import from the UK – tariff- and quota-free – really are British.
We cannot take the risk that the UK becomes an assembly hub for goods from all over the world, allowing them to enter the single market as British goods.
2/ Second example: financial services:
As of 1 January 2021, UK firms will lose the benefit of the financial services passport. Indeed, no firm from a country outside the Single market has such a passport.
This means that UK financial services firms will no longer be able to offer their services in all EU Member States based on their UK authorisation.
Those UK financial institutions that want to continue working in all certainty across the Single Market know that they can establish themselves in an EU Member State.
For the rest, in a number of sectors, such as in the area of Credit Rating Agencies, the EU will have the possibility to grant equivalences.
We will do so when it is in the interest of the EU; our financial stability; our investors and our consumers.
But these equivalences will never be global nor permanent. Nor will they be subject to joint management with the UK. They are, and will remain, unilateral decisions.
I read in the Financial Times recently that London must retain its primacy as a hub for wholesale financial markets without becoming a rule-taker of European regulation.
As a former Commissioner in charge of financial services, allow me to question that.
Why should we accept that the profits stay in London while the EU carries the risks?
The UK may not want to be a rule-taker. But we do not want to be the risk-taker.
When the next financial crisis strikes, who will foot the bill? I doubt the UK will foot it for the EU.
That is why the EU must take the responsibility for its financial regulation, supervision and stability.
3/ Third example: the authorisation and certification of goods for circulation in the EU Single Market.
As of 1 January 2021, as a third country, the UK will no longer be able to grant marketing authorisations for pharmaceuticals or type-approvals for cars for the EU market.
In addition, goods certified by UK bodies will no longer be allowed to be placed on the EU market.
Indeed, the EU cannot accept, whatever the sector, to be reliant on the UK – as a third country that is no longer participating in the internal market – for key regulatory, supervisory and certification tasks.
Especially when we are talking about very large volumes. And even more so when we are talking about critical products, such as medical devices.
Aside from possible supply risks, this would raise enforcement issues.
That is why these functions must be carried out in the EU in the future.
There is no economic block on this planet which would not protect itself and will try to install an arbitration panel in their own interest. The smaller party will always be in the weaker position. The US tried to force its arbitration panel onto the EU and TTIP ran aground. May be they underestimated the soft power of the EU?
The proximity of the UK and the EU makes it necessary to find something like a LPF. It might not be named like this but the effect has to be legally binding to prevent the UK to undercut the EU economy. The haggling of words and definitions will be quite a spectacle. What worries me more are notions of the UK leaving the ECHR, a non EU organisation the EU sees as very important for any kind of relationship with the UK. This could become very messy.
The whole speech here.
It will be very interesting to compare this with the to be expected official release today of the UK‘s position from No. 10. The negotiations ahead will be a lot tougher than the ones about the WA before. Should Johnson really trying to renege the NI protocol and insist on no customs between UK and NI these can get very rough in a short time.0 -
The uk cannot be serious about trade talks. Johnson threatens to walk away in june and thinks the whole thing should be concluded in september. You cannot take that seriously or twist yourself in knots trying to figure out a strategy, especially when you went through pretty much all the same ridiculous rigmarole in the months and weeks leading up to the divorce talks. I think its eminently possible substantive talks might break down in june but it could just as easily be eu that pulls the plug.0
-
They won’t pull the plug. That’s just not the way the EU operates. The talks could end up being indefinitely suspended with a door left open with an aspiration to conclude them at some stage.0
-
There is no reason not to believe that the Telegraph would know what Boris Johnson is going to say in a speech, but plenty of reason to believe that whatever Johnson was going to say was a tissue of lies - after all he made a great career for himself doing exactly the same thing for that very same publication.An ominous sounding article in tomorrow's Telegraph :
No reason to believe this is false....the paper seem to be aware of what he will say in a speech
Indeed. That's what Ivan Rogers thought too:Realistically a comprehensive trade deal could take a decade.Wikipedia wrote:In December 2016, an internal memo [Ivan] Rogers had written suggesting difficulties for agreement was leaked. According to this leaked memo, Sir Ivan privately held the view that a settlement between the UK and the European Union might not be reached for 10 years, if at all, which did not reflect the Government's view. Questions were raised in the press whether Downing Street could any longer have confidence in his advice. He resigned on 3 January 20170 -
Yes recently the EU said that, due to the UK's proximity to the EU, a Canada style deal was not possible. But this reference to the UK's proximity only came about when the UK called their bluff and said that they would opt for such a deal. The position up to that point was that a Canada-style deal was possible.Professor Moriarty wrote: »Two days ago, Barnier said that the UK could not have a Canada style deal.
Therefore this is all part of the war of words prior to negotiations which will go ahead. This is good news for Ireland.0 -
The position is still the same - a Canda "style" deal is possible, but not on the exact same terms as Canada got.Bit cynical wrote: »The position up to that point was that a Canada-style deal was possible.0 -
The issue of geographical proximity is new. I don't think even commentators on this thread raised it until the EU put out briefings suggesting it was an issue. No mention of it before that.The position is still the same - a Canda "style" deal is possible, but not on the exact same terms as Canada got.
However the key point is that negotiations will proceed.0 -
Advertisement
-
are we seeing an undercurrent of acceleration of tech roles to Ireland ? just seeing previously quite firms expanding here and new ones opening up monthly fintech etc.
A torrent could turn into a deluge.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement