3 Likes
How did you acquire that exclusive footage of a Johnson cabinet meeting?
3 Likes
I have my contacts. Or should I say, leaks!
2 Likes
And the other one is Ursula von der Leyen. Soo 2020âŚ
2 Likes
Agreed and ratified by both legislatures, or just agreed in principle?
Mightnât that include an agreed extension of time under the existing transition arrangements, while negotiations continue? In other words a no-deal âdealâ to continue talking.
We could go on like this forever (a bit like trade negotiations). 
Iâll go with @Arminiusâ suggestion.
A free trade deal, ratified by both legislatures, by 1st January, 2020.
My chosen charity is the Salvation Army.
3 Likes
Officially we have. We are now in transition. There is no remain, only deciding what relationship we have from January with the EU. That is why itâs critical.
2 Likes
OK, Brain Tumour Charity for me and I agree, ratified deal 
2 Likes
Do you think that a deal will fix all the current concerns?
For the record, I donât because we simply arenât ready.
2 Likes
Well no. No deal could fix all of them at this stage. Iâm frankly amazed that 98% is agreed. Thatâs a staggering effort in the space of a year, particularly given the pandemic.
I would be surprised if a deal isnât ratified for that 98% with the loose ends being given some further time. Resolving the dispute resolution mechanism shouldnât be insurmountable. The other two remaining issues might be a bit more problematic and could come down to agreeing some ambiguous wording to allow both sides to spin it for their respective audiences, something which will no doubt prove contentious later on but at least it will be kicked down the road allowing the agreement to be ratified for now.
1 Like
Exactly. The essence of a good political deal is that the detail is secondary. Whatâs important is reporting back to your âsideâ about what a great deal youâve got and how well youâve negotiated.
1 Like
98% of what though? According to the Beeb:
If a free trade deal is agreed now, it wonât be a particularly ambitious one. There hasnât been time to go for much more than a basic model.
Does anyone have an inkling of what is / is not included? For example, have quotas for goods & commodities been agreed, or has anything been confirmed with regard to services?
4 Likes
Iâd bet 98% is just a roll over that doesnât impinge on anything fundamental for either side.
No issue is unsurmountable but compromise is needed and in my mind that us where the UK struggles. Politically they are snookered and the EU know it. And thatâs been the case from Day 1 given the total lack of understanding by those shouting from the roof tops how great it would be.
Fishing is a prime example. All screaming how important it is to take control of waters while being totally ignorant of the fact that the UK industry relies on selling fish to the EU. EU wants access, UK wants to sell so the status quo is the logical way forward, or close to but Boris cant sell that to Brexiteers.
2 Likes
I can not believe the Beeb wrote all that without some focus on services particularly financial services. Thatâs where the money is I think.
1 Like
Selling fish or selling fishing rights? If itâs more valuable for the UK economy to sell fish to the EU and elsewhere than fishing rights then obviously the UK will want to reduce the fishing rights of EU member States in UK waters.
2 Likes
The sticking point is fishing and access to the free market, and I was a remoaner, but frankly, its a crude conflation from the EU to seek to compare market access with fishing rights; fishing is, in property law, regarded as a resource, profits a prendre. In what sense can the EU expect to have direct access to a resource? Are the UK seeking access to minerals in the French mountains, no they are not.
The two do not compare in law and it is frankly disingenuous of EU negotiators to adopt this stance; most of them will be well versed in law to boot. Unfortunately, even though remoaners may turn out correct about the economic damage, the Brexiteers were right about the slap-shit-hand the EU are bringing to the table.
3 Likes
Does any of this include the substantial part of the English fishing industry that is already owned by EU companies?
Itâs a genuine question, Iâm hardly an expert on fishing.
2 Likes
The answer is both isnât it. Given that itâs such a political hot potato of their own making. The government cant be seen to be giving ground to the EU on the matter, but they have to in some manner while at the same time not crucifying the fishing industries access to their largest market.
1 Like
UK companies can âbuyâ mining rights in the French mountains. So conversely the French could buy fishing rights to UK waters.
Seems funny to me that a place where noone lives or owns is the center of such a conflict.
From what I can gather France is now just looking at some sort of compensation package for the fishermen. That wonât go down well with the fishermen in a already run down industry.
There is of course also the question of the once quota system that wonât apply to the UK anymore. This will be a sticky point as well.
Just not simple and thatâs not looking at it in detail, I just havenât a clue about the fishing industry have you?
1 Like
But that is the point entirely mate, the EU are seeking hands on access, not a quid pro quo contractual access, such as what the UK are seeking in respect of the market. The UK expect to pay for access to the EU market, the EU want direct taking from UK waters.
1 Like
Strange indeed, given the importance to the UK of its trade in services. All I could find (in the article) was the rather terse comment:
An agreement would do very little for the substantial trade in services either.
We shall have to wait and see.
3 Likes