Britain’s relationship with the EU post Brexit.

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,465
Location
Scotland
Oh dear...
A Brexiteer who was forced to wait in an immigration queue at an EU airport in Amsterdam has complained that "this isn’t the Brexit I voted for”.

Colin Browning, who described himself as one of the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit, said he was forced to wait for nearly an hour at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol before his passport was checked.

“Absolutely disgusting service at Schiphol airport. 55 minutes we have been stood in the immigration queue. This isn’t the Brexit I voted for,” he wrote on Twitter.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...teer-amsterdam-airport-schiphol-a9335281.html
 

DaleCooper

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2015
Messages
3,403
Location
No.664 - Next door to the Beast
If they stick to this it will surely be stalemate, it doesn't look promising.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51650961

Post-Brexit talks: UK prepared to walk away in June if no progress

The UK has warned the EU it will walk away from trade talks in June unless there is a "broad outline" of a deal.


Michael Gove told MPs the UK wanted to strike a "comprehensive free trade agreement" in 10 months.

But the government would not accept any alignment with EU laws as the EU is demanding, with Mr Gove adding: "We will not trade away our sovereignty."

The EU has already set out its priorities ahead of the formal start of the talks on Monday.

The government has published a 30-page document outlining its priorities for the talks.

The UK document says:

  • The UK "will not negotiate any arrangements in which the UK does not have control of its own laws and political life"
  • The UK's aim is for a trading relationship with the EU similar to the ones the 27-nation bloc has with Canada, Japan and South Korea
  • There will be no jurisdiction for EU law or the European Court of Justice in the UK
  • The UK will rely on World Trade Organization rules under an arrangement with the EU similar to Australia's if progress on a comprehensive deal cannot be made
  • A separate agreement on fisheries is needed, to reflect the fact that "the UK will be an independent coastal state at the end of 2020"
  • The government wants to agree a "broad outline" of a deal with the EU "capable of being rapidly finalised by September" in the next four months
  • If that does not happen it will decide whether to switch focus to leaving on WTO terms at the end of December
The UK officially left the EU at the end of January, but is continuing to abide by many EU rules while talks on a permanent trading relationship take place.

Mr Johnson has pledged to get a deal with the EU by the end of the so-called transition period - 31 December 2020 - and has said he is not prepared to extend that deadline.

The UK's negotiating team will be led by Mr Johnson's Europe adviser David Frost.

 

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
141
If they stick to this it will surely be stalemate, it doesn't look promising.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51650961


Not really a stalemate, as the UK is totally going to lose out.

This is just another step towards the no deal Brexit Johnson was trying to achieve at the end of January.

In case anyone is still wondering if today's news is good, take a look which way Sterling went afterwards as the markets are being very cautious at present.

I am genuinely fearful for the UK economy, especially after the announcement of the reduction in farming subsidies and the changes to immigration policies, the agri-food industry doesn't have long left, so I hope you all like chlorinated chicken!
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
1,838
I don't understand why Johnson is doing this. We've finally left the union, and without stepping on our prized sovereignty (that sovereignty shtick is banal and meaningless - we never lost it to begin with - but let's not dwell eh?) we could still negotiate and keep the ultra-important bits of our partnership with the EU. European Arrest Warrant, Erasmus+, tariff-free trade and some of the other important cogs and widgets that keep the UK economy and security going.

But no. The PM and his fellow petulant children in the cabinet are absolutely determined to bore a massive hole in what's left of the economy and condemn our businesses to WTO tariffs while erasing any remaining goodwill we had with EU nations.

And for what? Anyone want to explain how this is going to benefit us?
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
3,770
I don't understand why Johnson is doing this. We've finally left the union, and without stepping on our prized sovereignty (that sovereignty shtick is banal and meaningless - we never lost it to begin with - but let's not dwell eh?) we could still negotiate and keep the ultra-important bits of our partnership with the EU. European Arrest Warrant, Erasmus+, tariff-free trade and some of the other important cogs and widgets that keep the UK economy and security going.

But no. The PM and his fellow petulant children in the cabinet are absolutely determined to bore a massive hole in what's left of the economy and condemn our businesses to WTO tariffs while erasing any remaining goodwill we had with EU nations.

And for what? Anyone want to explain how this is going to benefit us?
That is exactly what we are wanting but the EU will not give it unless we also accept loss of control of our fishing waters, dynamic alignment with EU regulations, acceptance of ECJ, and much else, not to mention Gibraltar and even the Elgin marbles.
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
797
I don't understand why Johnson is doing this. We've finally left the union, and without stepping on our prized sovereignty (that sovereignty shtick is banal and meaningless - we never lost it to begin with - but let's not dwell eh?) we could still negotiate and keep the ultra-important bits of our partnership with the EU. European Arrest Warrant, Erasmus+, tariff-free trade and some of the other important cogs and widgets that keep the UK economy and security going.

But no. The PM and his fellow petulant children in the cabinet are absolutely determined to bore a massive hole in what's left of the economy and condemn our businesses to WTO tariffs while erasing any remaining goodwill we had with EU nations.

And for what? Anyone want to explain how this is going to benefit us?
So he can play at being some sort of revolutionary PM?

That is exactly what we are wanting but the EU will not give it unless we also accept loss of control of our fishing waters, dynamic alignment with EU regulations, acceptance of ECJ, and much else, not to mention Gibraltar and even the Elgin marbles.
In a negotiation and deal, everyone gives in a little bit. The deal that comes out will be a more or less fair one, not a deal that favours one side.

EU tax regulation, it seems.
The only logical reason he would want this is so that he can build Singapour sur Tamise as the French media call it.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
23,588
Location
Yorks
To be fair, this is precisely what the EU has been asking for for the last three years:

"You can't have a bespoke deal - it's either limited access with limited convergence, like Canada, or greater access with more convergence, like Norway".

For better or worse, Johnson's decided on Canada, and the EU is backtracking.

Just saying.....
 

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
141
To be fair, this is precisely what the EU has been asking for for the last three years:

"You can't have a bespoke deal - it's either limited access with limited convergence, like Canada, or greater access with more convergence, like Norway".

For better or worse, Johnson's decided on Canada, and the EU is backtracking.

Just saying.....
Not sure the UK was ever promised a Canada deal, rather it was after Teresa May outlined her plans for the future UK/EU relationship and was told then that what she as after was not possible, and what the UK would get would be closer to a Canada style deal and not that it would be replicated.

I also recall Johnson saying he was after a Canada plus plus deal, but all the promises yet again have come from the British fantasists in government.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
23,588
Location
Yorks
Not sure the UK was ever promised a Canada deal, rather it was after Teresa May outlined her plans for the future UK/EU relationship and was told then that what she as after was not possible, and what the UK would get would be closer to a Canada style deal and not that it would be replicated.

I also recall Johnson saying he was after a Canada plus plus deal, but all the promises yet again have come from the British fantasists in government.
I think that over the past three years, the EU has been entirely justified in saying that "you can't have your cake and eat it", which was what Theresa May was trying to do. If you want greater access, you have to put up with greater convergence.

However, if Johnson truly is only asking for what other third party countries have got through their trade deals and the EU isn't prepared to go along with that, then the EU is trying to have its gateaux and eat it.
 

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
141
However, if Johnson truly is only asking for what other third party countries have got through their trade deals and the EU isn't prepared to go along with that, then the EU is trying to have its gateaux and eat it
With other third countries however there is a degree of convergence of certain standards. The UK has categorically said that they wish to diverge and so the off-the -shelf deal Johnson is hoping for (I don't believe he is after this and it is a no-deal he desires which he can blame entirely on the EU), simply isn't available to him, so all the gateaux and cake references I'm afraid still sit with the UK and their fantasy expectations.

We'll see who will be eating cake come 2021.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
1,838
That is exactly what we are wanting but the EU will not give it unless we also accept loss of control of our fishing waters, dynamic alignment with EU regulations, acceptance of ECJ, and much else, not to mention Gibraltar and even the Elgin marbles.
Come on, it's a negotiation. You don't get everything you want and neither does the other side. Which of the above would you be willing to tolerate in order to secure Erasmus+ access, the Arrest Warrant, tariff-free trading.. and which of those would you deem most important to secure?

The only logical reason he would want this is so that he can build Singapour sur Tamise as the French media call it.
I fear this has always been Johnson's aim. Think there's already a sizeable imbalance between rich and poor now? Give it two years and then we'll truly understand how wide such a gulf can be.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
3,770
I think that over the past three years, the EU has been entirely justified in saying that "you can't have your cake and eat it", which was what Theresa May was trying to do. If you want greater access, you have to put up with greater convergence.

However, if Johnson truly is only asking for what other third party countries have got through their trade deals and the EU isn't prepared to go along with that, then the EU is trying to have its gateaux and eat it.
Is the UK asking for greater access than Canada, Japan or South Korea?

If we are, I agree the UK has to give somewhere.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,507
Location
Nottingham
Is the UK asking for greater access than Canada, Japan or South Korea?

If we are, I agree the UK has to give somewhere.
Because we are much closer than Canada and have a much greater historic trading relationship, the agreement with the UK presents far more risks to the EU.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
3,770
That's entirely consistent with the Brexiter view that distance doesn't matter in issues of trade. But also entirely wrong, as I have explained many times on this and the previous thread.
In your opinion. In the days of sailing ships it certainly mattered. In these days of very large container carriers for low value freight and 747 freighters for high value, distance is irrelevant. High value electronics from Japan can be in the EU in hours.

This move by the EU is simply the latest in a long line of ploys to tie down the UK to dynamic harmonisation, to stifle FTAs with other countries, the thought of which terrifies the club.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,507
Location
Nottingham
In your opinion. In the days of sailing ships it certainly mattered. In these days of very large container carriers for low value freight and 747 freighters for high value, distance is irrelevant. High value electronics from Japan can be in the EU in hours.

This move by the EU is simply the latest in a long line of ploys to tie down the UK to dynamic harmonisation, to stifle FTAs with other countries, the thought of which terrifies the club.
In your opinion.

As well as the direct carbon emissions, very significant where airfreight is involved, trade involves people travelling to establish and maintain the relationships. This is also true of services, which Johnson is completely ignoring despite them being much more value to the UK economy than goods. The longer the distance the more difficult to maintain the relationship due to time differences and time and cost of travel (plus more emissions). There's also the issue that companies have built up their trading relationships over decades and these are now to be wrenched apart, with them being expected to establish new ones with more distant and less well known economies that already have established relationships of their own.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
23,588
Location
Yorks
With other third countries however there is a degree of convergence of certain standards. The UK has categorically said that they wish to diverge and so the off-the -shelf deal Johnson is hoping for (I don't believe he is after this and it is a no-deal he desires which he can blame entirely on the EU), simply isn't available to him, so all the gateaux and cake references I'm afraid still sit with the UK and their fantasy expectations.

We'll see who will be eating cake come 2021.
But those other third countries are starting off from an position of much greater divergance, so if the UK is arguing for a similar deal, it would presumably be diverging down to the same level that the other third parties are converging up to.

From what I understand it, the trade deals in question mainly involve goods, which is the easier part of trade negotiations anyway, so I doubt that those countries are being expected to adopt the whole panoply of state aid rules.

Cake is a good, so I hope that come this time next year, we'll all be eating eachothers cake.

Is the UK asking for greater access than Canada, Japan or South Korea?

If we are, I agree the UK has to give somewhere.
Indeed. If we are asking for greater access then those countries then we should have to sacrifice more control.

From what I've read though, Mr Barnier seems to have ruled out a Canada style agreement, which suggests that if we are requesting the same we won't get it.
 

87electric

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2010
Messages
647
There's also the issue that companies have built up their trading relationships over decades and these are now to be wrenched apart, with them being expected to establish new ones with more distant and less well known economies that already have established relationships of their own.
Any Corporation/Company in business worth their salt adapt and evolve all the time. It's the way to survive.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,507
Location
Nottingham
Any Corporation/Company in business worth their salt adapt and evolve all the time. It's the way to survive.
That's true but irrelevant. If all companies were able to adapt to changing market conditions then we'd still have Woolworths and Maplin.

If trading conditions get more difficult then some won't be able to adapt and will go under. Others will have to devote their management time and funds to survival when they would otherwise have gone towards expansion. Either way Britain loses out to foreign competitors that face less adverse trading conditions.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,177
Location
York
Any Corporation/Company in business worth their salt adapt and evolve all the time. It's the way to survive.
Well-established, well-run businesses with their trading relationships built up carefully over decades don't expect to be shafted by their own government.
 

Top