Airliners.net

A3801000 wrote:

EU officially rejects TMs demands to renegotiate the Brexit deal. 'Withdrawal Agreement is not up for renegotiation' - Joint statement by TM and Juncker.
Now what?

I'd like to think it's one step closer to Brexit being cancelled given that the backstop is unpalatable to Parliament and there's no appetite for a no-deal Brexit. The fact that May was happy to put her name to that statement alongside Juncker is telling and might be a message to Brexiteers who want rid of the backstop in particular.

A101 wrote:

So why is it viable when the EU remainers suggest it?

Remainers are pointing out options, not suggestions.

Big difference.

A101 wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

It leaves NI, a part of the United Kingdom as a vassal state.

Nope, as the rules of the UK still apply within NI, internal trade between NI/ROI remains the status quo within the Island of Ireland

Unfortunately that's hogwash. UK -> UK trade by default will have to pass customs & immigration checks. If the UK left that door open then the EU would have to introduce customs & immigration checks on the Ireland/EU end, which it won't, as it's against the EU's constitution. Ireland & the EU would have to impose the hard border between NI & Ireland due to the UK's failure to control it's borders. Leaving the UK in breach of the GFA.

ChrisKen wrote:

You leave the majority of the population in NI that consider themselves as British extremely pee'd off and dub all citizens there as second class UK citizens. This is quite rightly unacceptable to them and the constitution

They are still governed by the National laws of the UK in NI, just as ROI have national laws once you cross the border

You miss understand, you leave them as 2nd class citizens by undermining many parts of the UK's constitution.

ChrisKen wrote:

You'd leave UK citizens subject to customs and immigration control within their own country (against the constitution). Freedom of movement.

Nope, ROI/NI citizens have free movements within the island confine, NI citizens board domestic travel between NI and UK no border checks, ROI citizen travel via international rules and are subject to those rule on entry to mainland UK and vice versa

OK, so you're doubling and duplicating the current crossing services and ports to facilitate this (at whose expense?)...That makes sense Pssst, the EU or UK won't allow a open backdoor, by definition all passing through will have to be checked anyway. (Against the constitution)
If you are not, then a UK citizen is passing through a customs & immigration check point within the UK to reach another part of the UK by default. This is against the constitution.

ChrisKen wrote:

The EU quite rightly won't allow the UK (a 3rd country) to be effectively both in and out of the EU/A customs Union. Especially without a deal in place regarding that status in the future.

The UK as a whole won’t be in the EU, just a Mutual Irish GFA recognition

Which is being both and out of the EU or a Customs Union at the same time. The EU won't allow this. The EU have suggested this as a temporary solution, but an agreement on the future status MUST be agreed beforehand. That agreement cannot be reached without violating the GFA, without the UK entering a customs union or leaving NI as a vassal state. it is not a solution.

ChrisKen wrote:

Ireland wishes to be part of the EU.

Didn’t you just say they are going to be pissed of if the leave the UK? The UK is no longer going to be part of the EU

No, I said NI is part of the UK. Ireland wishes to be part of the EU.

ChrisKen wrote:

The Irish Sea border is not a viable solution.

So why is it viable when the EU remainers suggest it?

No one has said it is in anything other than a short term temporary measure. And that's only if agreements on that measure can be agreed. You really are rather blinkered on brexit.

Boeing74741R wrote:

A3801000 wrote:

EU officially rejects TMs demands to renegotiate the Brexit deal. 'Withdrawal Agreement is not up for renegotiation' - Joint statement by TM and Juncker.
Now what?

I'd like to think it's one step closer to Brexit being cancelled given that the backstop is unpalatable to Parliament and there's no appetite for a no-deal Brexit. The fact that May was happy to put her name to that statement alongside Juncker is telling and might be a message to Brexiteers who want rid of the backstop in particular.

And it puts into a completely different light the comment from eurocouncil President Tusk about Brexiteers deserving a special place in hell, yesterday.

Anyone still doubting that it was just a slip of the tongue (although it was also posted on Twitter after the press conference) should now understand that the general feeling between both the EU27 and TM is clearly that the kind of brexit they are pushing for is leading everybody nowhere and a change of course is urgently needed... and on the way too, it seems.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Ireland is part of the Common Travel Area with the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, so Irish citizens can travel freely to/from these places without passports, visas etc. in the same way Brits/Manx/Channel Islanders can do likewise (not that it stops airlines such as Ryanair insisting on passports being the form of ID). It's good to see that both the UK and RoI want no changes to the CTA post-Brexit at least.

It is good to see but the CTA is no longer workable once the UK leaves the EU and Ireland remains. Either a hard border between the UK & EU has to be put in place or the UK has to enter a Customs Union with the EU. One violates the GFA, the other is objectionable to brexiteers and Ireland has to waive it's right to join the schengen area in favour of the CTA. The Irish Sea border is at best a very temporary measure, with far more problems long term.

For those that often quote "but it worked before 1974!" - Indeed it did but both the UK and Ireland were both 3rd countries until they both joined the EEA at the same time in 1973. The CTA worked as both countries have always had the same status, both were members or non members, both remained non-schengen countries. This will not be the case if either leaves the EU without the other.


As for Ryanair , as loathed as I am to defend them, Ireland imposed systematic identity checks on all air passengers coming from the UK in 1997 (selective checks sea pax, random checks via land crossings). The UK doesn't have an ID card for it's citizens, this leaves us requiring a passport or driving license. For various reasons Ryanair quite legitimately don't accept anything other than a passport for an international flight (it's still international even though it's in the CTA). BA and Flybe allow passport or photocard driving license for travel between UK & Ireland for it's citizens, Aer Lingus will let you travel on anything down to a bus pass with photo or your work photo ID.
You CAN use any photocard ID eg driving license on a Ryanair UK domestic flight though.

Looks like May has given up on the ERG+DUP to get a deal through the Commons by accepting that the EU will not reopen the backstop or the Withdrawal Agreement overall.

That had been a foolish approach in any case – the fanatics don't actually want to achieve anything other than wrecking any kind of agreed deal.

Too bad May had wasted years on never bothering to build a broader consensus before, but here we are...

Klaus wrote:

Looks like May has given up on the ERG+DUP to get a deal through the Commons by accepting that the EU will not reopen the backstop or the Withdrawal Agreement overall.

That had been a foolish approach in any case – the fanatics don't actually want to achieve anything other than wrecking any kind of agreed deal.

Too bad May had wasted years on never bothering to build a broader consensus before, but here we are...

Indeed!

Seems like the brexit coordinator from the EP has also told TM exactly the same thing. Some basic lessons in parliamentary democracy for the British PM:

"You cannot have an agreement based on majorities of six, seven, eight, nine votes in the House of Commons. Cross-party cooperation is the way forward, and I can say that we welcome the letter that Jeremy Corbyn has written today to Mrs May to offer such a cross-party exit. It is important now that this leads to a position in the UK that has the broadest possible majority"

In other words: look for common ground between what most Tories could vote for, and what most Labour MPs could vote for, and come back to us with a new set of demands for the future relationship and then when you look at that, you'll probably see the backstop is a non-issue because the future relationship will absorb it anyway as it will most likely be along the lines of a permanent CU plus a (pseudo) SM membership anyway...

sabenapilot wrote:

......when you look at that, you'll probably see the backstop is a non-issue because the future relationship will absorb it anyway as it will most likely be along the lines of a permanent CU plus a (pseudo) SM membership anyway...

In which case why leave the EU in the first place? BINO is pointless. Remaining a member is still the most viable option in that scenario, as it is in all the scenarios presented so far.

Brexiteers promised, unicorn filled uplands, no EU control, no single market, no norway style option, no BINO, and not a penny more to Europe. Your outlined plan, which I agree is the most likely outcome, goes against all these promises made by 'leave' and we know all the gammons are dead set on promises being kept and non binding advisory votes being respected. #deludedbrexitfools

ChrisKen wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

......when you look at that, you'll probably see the backstop is a non-issue because the future relationship will absorb it anyway as it will most likely be along the lines of a permanent CU plus a (pseudo) SM membership anyway...

In which case why leave the EU in the first place? BINO is pointless. Remaining a member is still the most viable option in that scenario, as it is in all the scenarios presented so far.

Sure, but so is any other kind of Brexit – just more damaging.

Brexiteers promised, unicorn filled uplands, no EU control, no single market, no norway style option, no BINO, and not a penny more to Europe. Your outlined plan, which I agree is the most likely outcome, goes against all these promises made by 'leave' and we know all the gammons are dead set on promises being kept and non binding advisory votes being respected. #deludedbrexitfools

The question is whether any of the political pygmies in Westminster would actually have the guts to do something about it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... -1.3785317

Some US politicians have weighed in on what they want, no trade agreement with the UK unless the GFA is supported. I don't know how committed Republicans are to the GFA, but I suspect it is near total commitment on the part of Democrats. This could be a deal breaker for Brexit. Anyone have a better assessment?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-uk-told-to-uphold-belfast-agreement-if-it-wants-us-trade-1.3785317

Some US politicians have weighed in on what they want, no trade agreement with the UK unless the GFA is supported. I don't know how committed Republicans are to the GFA, but I suspect it is near total commitment on the part of Democrats. This could be a deal breaker for Brexit. Anyone have a better assessment?

Seems like this all over again:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-uk-told-to-uphold-belfast-agreement-if-it-wants-us-trade-1.3785317

Some US politicians have weighed in on what they want, no trade agreement with the UK unless the GFA is supported. I don't know how committed Republicans are to the GFA, but I suspect it is near total commitment on the part of Democrats. This could be a deal breaker for Brexit. Anyone have a better assessment?

We have a lot bigger issues in the USA than worrying about RoI and NI. Hopefully Pres. Trump will keep his mouth shut, although he seems to be pro-Brexit due to his anti-EU attitudes.

Although the 'Irish' vote is not want it was in the USA, it is still of interest to support the GFA that President Clinton was a major figure is causing to happen. It really ended the terror war in Ireland, NI and UK, no good politician wants to go back. A number of older Irish persons in the USA may want to see a unification of all of Ireland under the ROI. Now may be time to begin the process of a unified Ireland as times change, old ideas and the supporters of separatism die off. NI would likely be better part of the ROI, especially with the who knows want situation from Brexit.

Eight in 10 in the Irish Republic think their government should hold out for a legal guarantee that there will be no hard border.

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-pol ... p-11629673

A3801000 wrote:

EU officially rejects TMs demands to renegotiate the Brexit deal. 'Withdrawal Agreement is not up for renegotiation' - Joint statement by TM and Juncker.
Now what?

50 days to Brexit and they gave Theresa May a few days to renegotiate a deal that can't be renegotiated so they can then vote on something they've already voted.

Boeing74741R wrote:

A3801000 wrote:

EU officially rejects TMs demands to renegotiate the Brexit deal. 'Withdrawal Agreement is not up for renegotiation' - Joint statement by TM and Juncker.
Now what?

I'd like to think it's one step closer to Brexit being cancelled given that the backstop is unpalatable to Parliament and there's no appetite for a no-deal Brexit. The fact that May was happy to put her name to that statement alongside Juncker is telling and might be a message to Brexiteers who want rid of the backstop in particular.

For the EU, cancelling the Brexit by the UK is the worst what can happen. Because we have still to deal with the Brexiteers. Let them burn....

sabenapilot wrote:

A3801000 wrote:

Congratulations to the UK!
Free Trade Agreement signed, ready to come into effect after the UK has left the EU.
And congratulations to the Faroe Islands too of course

https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... eement-fta

From the very first page:
"It maintains the effects of the EU-Faroe Islands agreement in a bilateral context", so absolutely nothing new here.

It's a much needed legal solution to the fact that the Faroe Islands -although constitutionally an intergral part of the Kingdom of Denmark- are no part of the EU, and as such any future FTA with the EU will not apply to them and so the UK would no longer be able to trade with the Faroe Islands like it now can via the EU protocols linking the Faroe Islands into the EU's economic sphere.

Expect similar solutions for other constitutionally difficult parts of EU memberstates, like for instance Greenland or certain French oversees communities: in fact the WA already mentioned the need for those as any EU-UK agreement will not apply to these territories since the UK becomes a third party. (which is exactly where the term third party comes from, btw)

But hey, it's proof of the state of dispair if the UK's trade secretary is having to brag about a simply roll over agreement with an autonomous part of a EU memberstate as his biggest achievement, less than 50 days before the supposed Brexit date!

Looks like non-EU dependent nations are not going to be so kind to simply roll over their existing FTA between them and the EU once the UK has left the EU!

Today, the Financial Times is reporting that both Japan as well as South Korea will seek to extract addtional concessions from the UK and NOT simply roll over their recently concluded FTA with the EU, to the UK! Korea will for instance be demanding serious concessions on the rules of origin clauses, allowing them to include Chinese content in return for the Uk's must have allowance to include EU content...

The USA has also already published its must have list of concessions it will seek to extract from the UK for it to conclude a FTA:
- Changing how NHS chiefs buy drugs to suit big US pharmaceutical companies.
- Britain scrapping its safety-first approach to safety and food standards.
- Law changes that would allow foreign companies to sue the British state.
- Removing protections for traditional British products

The UK simply rolling over all existing FTAs from the EU and thereafter- and one-by-one- go over them to strike better, tailor made versions of them post Brexit... yet another fantasy from brexiteers.

Better sign up to a permanent CU with the EU asap to stay under its protective umbrella of stong, generous and wideranging FTAs before other countries will take the UK to the cleaners.... especially as it will also (help) solve the NI backstop AND mean the WA will likely get accepted by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. What is TM waiting for actually?

marcelh wrote:

Because we have still to deal with the Brexiteers. Let them burn....

Actually itll be the best thing if the UK cancels Brexit and immediately sidelined the Brexiteers politically.

Then immediately start a reconsideration campaign where the Brexiteers are told that they've been lied to and its strongly implied that it's time to accept the truth.

sabenapilot wrote:

Looks like non-EU dependent nations are not going to be so kind to simply roll over their existing FTA between them and the EU once the UK has left the EU!

It's the oddest thing that so many britts didn't see this coming. You brexiters here on the forum, how did you come to the conclusion that you'd get better deals from a weaker position? Feel like I'm missing something obvious here.

agill wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Looks like non-EU dependent nations are not going to be so kind to simply roll over their existing FTA between them and the EU once the UK has left the EU!

It's the oddest thing that so many britts didn't see this coming. You brexiters here on the forum, how did you come to the conclusion that you'd get better deals from a weaker position? Feel like I'm missing something obvious here.

Indeed!

Brexiteers have repeatedly complained about what they consider an intransigent behaviour from the EU, yet the very kind roll over conditions of the trade agreement between the Faroe Islands (part of the Kingdom of Denmark) as well as the generous terms and conditions of the WA (e.g a free CU, nation wide even) show that the EU is currently still easy going on the UK in fact.
Wait till the UK is truely out and needs to start negotiate with the true bullies like the USA, Japan, etc!
Brexiteers are in for another very rough awakening, it seems.
The UK of the 21st century is no longer the UK of the 19th!

sabenapilot wrote:

agill wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Looks like non-EU dependent nations are not going to be so kind to simply roll over their existing FTA between them and the EU once the UK has left the EU!

It's the oddest thing that so many britts didn't see this coming. You brexiters here on the forum, how did you come to the conclusion that you'd get better deals from a weaker position? Feel like I'm missing something obvious here.

Indeed!

Brexiteers have repeatedly complained about what they consider an intransigent behaviour from the EU, yet the very kind roll over conditions of the trade agreement between the Faroe Islands (part of the Kingdom of Denmark) as well as the generous terms and conditions of the WA (e.g a free CU, nation wide even) show that the EU is currently still easy going on the UK in fact.
Wait till the UK is truely out and needs to start negotiate with the true bullies like the USA, Japan, etc!
Brexiteers are in for another very rough awakening, it seems.
The UK of the 21st century is no longer the UK of the 19th!

You can tell the Brexiteers this over and over again, they say: we were promised unicorn and we want a unicorn. Nobody ever made a logical explanation were this economic benefit is coming from. So some Brexiteers made a logical statement: I take the economic hardship for granted in order or the UK to take back control, whatever that means. All in all, I would say the people whom are going to be hit hardest are the once in an economic disadvantaged position.

Dutchy wrote:

You can tell the Brexiteers this over and over again, they say: we were promised unicorn and we want a unicorn.

Promising it is one thing, actually believing it is another!

Dutchy wrote:

Some Brexiteers made a logical statement: I take the economic hardship for granted in order or the UK to take back control, whatever that means.

I respect those who want to pay the economic price for returning to the days of the 'splendid isolation', although I fear they will be massively disappointed when they find out that the 21st century no longer allows for the type of isolation they dream of: the UK will just have to undergo pretty much the same evolution as before, yet with diminished influence over it even! The idea you can row up against the stream (without a paddle even) in today's world is just ridiculous, really.

What is far more problematic is to see that so many marched (and are still marching) with those ideology driven arch-Brexiteers, knowing for sure they are not willing to pay that same price at all: in fact many of them aren't even able to, even if they want to! It's really the turkeys voting for Christmas.

Dutchy wrote:

I would say the people whom are going to be hit hardest are the ones in an economic disadvantaged position.

That's a given, and I wouldn't want to be near British politics when the explosive cocktail is going to have to be served to 'the people'!
A massive political earthquake which will make Brexit look like just a prelude to it all is currently brewing in the UK: no idea if it's going to be a radical Corbyn government (probably not) or a brake up of the Union in the next decade or so or something undefined still, but the massive public anger over the way things have been going in the UK the last decades and which was first expressed in the referendum of 2016 hasn't just gone away of course, and it will not be addressed with brexit nor any of the plans the UK government has for Britain's future once out of the EU, quite on the contrary even!

marcelh wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

A3801000 wrote:

EU officially rejects TMs demands to renegotiate the Brexit deal. 'Withdrawal Agreement is not up for renegotiation' - Joint statement by TM and Juncker.
Now what?

I'd like to think it's one step closer to Brexit being cancelled given that the backstop is unpalatable to Parliament and there's no appetite for a no-deal Brexit. The fact that May was happy to put her name to that statement alongside Juncker is telling and might be a message to Brexiteers who want rid of the backstop in particular.

For the EU, cancelling the Brexit by the UK is the worst what can happen. Because we have still to deal with the Brexiteers. Let them burn....

A new "Dolchstoßlegende".

Actually and IMU the Brexiteers won't back down because it would expose them as the idiots they are . forever .
It is like the US death penalty. It might have been the wrong person. But that person is dead now. so no recourse.

Time for some light entertainment, have everyone seen JRM's new hit music video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3TT1VE8Jq0

Bostrom wrote:

Time for some light entertainment, have everyone seen JRM's new hit music video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3TT1VE8Jq0

Brilliant.


Although more serious, Stephen Fry's take on thinks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

May rejects customs union again

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May has rejected the idea of targeting a customs union with the European Union, pouring cold water on hopes from some that she could shift her Brexit policy to win over the opposition Labour Party.

Last week, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn set out the conditions under which he would instruct his party to support an exit deal in parliament. Foremost was a demand that May seek a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union”.

But May’s office published her reply to Corbyn late on Sunday, showing little appetite for a U-turn which would risk splitting her fractious party by ruling out the scope for Britain to strike its own trade deals around the world.

“I am not clear why you believe it would be preferable to seek a say in future EU trade deals rather than the ability to strike our own deal?” May wrote in a three-page letter.

May and her government have repeatedly said membership of a customs union would prevent it having an independent trade policy - something they have promoted as one of the main economic benefits of leaving the EU.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-brit ... SKCN1PZ0Q9

Tick-tock, tick-tock.

No worries, she will renegotiate the deal.

Shipments departing the UK to Asia from this week will be in limbo regarding their import status at the destination.

The shit show in Westminster is getting ever more real with every passing day.

Klaus wrote:

Shipments departing the UK to Asia from this week will be in limbo regarding their import status at the destination.

The shit show in Westminster is getting ever more real with every passing day.

True, so it is getting very real from next week. Will those shipments be made or not?

Dutchy wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Shipments departing the UK to Asia from this week will be in limbo regarding their import status at the destination.

The shit show in Westminster is getting ever more real with every passing day.

True, so it is getting very real from next week. Will those shipments be made or not?

Shipments sent this week already will most likely arrive after Brexit day!

I expect that reporters will be checking in with some exporters to ask them how they're handling it.

zkojq wrote:

May rejects customs union again.

On a positive note, the UK signed a trade agreement with the Swiss today. The only question is: what is exluded in case of a hard Brexit.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-swiss/uk-and-switzerland-to-sign-post-brexit-trade-agreement-idUKKCN1Q0011

Meanwhile IAG has capped non-EU ownership and/or voting rights at 47.5% and becomes Brexit compliant.

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-iag/british-airways-owner-iag-to-cap-share-ownership-by-non-europeans-idUSL5N2065ZF

LJ wrote:

Meanwhile IAG has capped non-EU ownership and/or voting rights at 47.5% and becomes Brexit compliant.

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-iag/british-airways-owner-iag-to-cap-share-ownership-by-non-europeans-idUSL5N2065ZF

So BA not a British Airline anymore?

LJ wrote:

zkojq wrote:

May rejects customs union again.

On a positive note, the UK signed a trade agreement with the Swiss today. The only question is: what is exluded in case of a hard Brexit.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-swiss/uk-and-switzerland-to-sign-post-brexit-trade-agreement-idUKKCN1Q0011

Meanwhile IAG has capped non-EU ownership and/or voting rights at 47.5% and becomes Brexit compliant.

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-iag/british-airways-owner-iag-to-cap-share-ownership-by-non-europeans-idUSL5N2065ZF

Despite its name, it's not an independently negotiated FTA, its just a simple Trade Continuation Agreement, which allows trade to temporarily continue on exactly the same terms as under the current EU agreement. Sort of a transitional deal (or a WA-light) so to say, of which the UK has now concluded a grand total of just 4, 2 of which with countries locked into the EEA influence sphere.
It needs to shore up such agreements with 66 further countries plus of course the all important WA with the 27 remaining EU members itself just to keep the status quo by Brexit day... and then the 'real' negotiations can start globally, in which Britain will -for the first time in half a century- feel its meanwhile massively deminished weight.
Japan and Korea have already said they will definitely extract better terms from the UK once its on its own and are thus holding out on signing even a simple TCA for this very purpose. But hey, no (transitional) deal is officially better than a bad (transitional) deal right? Clearly all just grandstanding from the UK, as not only the EU knows all too well while the clock relentlessly runs down on it
British Airways is rushing to be able to say it has officially become a foreign controlled company now for instance, as a first yet quite humiliating sign of what it will mean for the British economy to be a rule taking country rather than a rule shaping one.

sabenapilot wrote:

Despite its name, it's not an independently negotiated FTA, its just a simple Trade Continuation Agreement, which allows trade to temporarily continue on exactly the same terms as under the current EU agreement. Sort of a transitional deal (or a WA-light) so to say, of which the UK has now concluded a grand total of just 4, 2 of which with countries locked into the EEA influence sphere.

The question remains, what will be left of the agreement if we have a hard Brexit. I don't think that the Swiss can have an extensive FTA with the EU and copy all the regulation. The Swiss themselves mention that a hard Brexit will have an impact on the agreement.

BTW does somebody know what both parties actually agreed? I wonder if the agreement contains provisions which will further deteriorate the relationship between the EU and Switzerland.

LJ wrote:

The question remains, what will be left of the agreement if we have a hard Brexit. I don't think that the Swiss can have an extensive FTA with the EU and copy all the regulation. The Swiss themselves mention that a hard Brexit will have an impact on the agreement.

The situation is going to be quite difficult should the UK not come to a soft agreement with the EU and decide to break free completely, indeed.

The set of bilateral deals between the EU and Switzerland which tie Switzerland firmly to the EEA all contain a guillotine clause which automatically terminates ALL of these bilateral agreements if Switzerland decides to disrespect even just 1 of them: it's all or nothing.

If the UK tries its much favoured -yet so far miserably failed- approach of simply cherry picking in negotiations with the Swiss and tries to negotiate something different with them on certain domains and the Swiss agree to that in a UK-Swiss bilateral (which they both legally could, provided it amounts to a win-win for both), then the Swiss have also terminated their entire portfolio of EU bilaterals which gives them full acces to the EEA!

Which is why it is so important for the Swiss that the UK remains fully in sync with the EEA after brexit, so any deal between them and Britain will not violate any of their obligations towards the EU.... the harder brexit becomes, the less things can effectively be changed between both 'sovereign' countries without EU consent!

It's yet another proof of just how 'sovereign' the UK will only just be when it comes to striking trade deals on its own: it can theoretically do so post-Brexit, but it will not easily find any significant trading partner which is prepared to favour an improved relationship with them over their much more important relationship with the much bigger, wealthier and economically more attractive EU and the annex of the EEA and its even wider custom unions.

LJ wrote:

BTW does somebody know what both parties actually agreed? I wonder if the agreement contains provisions which will further deteriorate the relationship between the EU and Switzerland.

Is suppose it's gong to be posted on the websites of the UK's trade department, or alternatively on those of the Swiss, pretty soon? There's no secret to it, is there?
I'm pretty sure its going to be quite dull though: the TCA between the UK and the Faroe Islands for instance was just 4 pages long (with lots of white and a few lines to state everything remains the same, and 'EU' is to be replaced by 'UK'), plus all the annexes which contain the general technical stuff.
Not exactly something to get excited about.

The Swiss will be extremely cautious to sign up to anything which could make them accidentally lose access to the EU market, especially as they are currently in the process of trying to renegotiate their complicated set of bilateral agreements with the EU to replace it by a single, simpler and all-inclusive deal with the EU, which gives the EU the most favoured partner status...they won't accidentally give such things away for free to the UK now they don't have to any longer, believe me.

Meanwhile, to sense how well things are going globally, lets look at the 'successes' of Global Britain so far, less than 50 days before Brexit, shall we?
Remember the government had repeatedly promised to roll over all of the 40+ current EU FTAs with no less than 70 different countries globally, so they would all still apply to the UK under a no-deal Brexit, right?

Official documents disclosed by The Sun showed that just 6 Trade Continuation Agreements were now expected to be ready in time when the UK leaves on 29 March!
The 4 which already got a green light and have been widely reported: Switzerland, Chile, Faroe Islands and East Africa,
while 2 further small deals with Israel and the Palestinian Authority were still judged as “on track”, to be signed before brexit.
Amber warnings have been given to 9 negotiations including those with South Korea and Canada, defined as “off-track” and likely coming late (if ever).
Red warnings have been given to the hoped for roll over of no less than 23 other EU FTAs, including those with big trading partners like Japan, Turkey and Mexico. They have now been classed as “not possible to be completed'' even!
Bye bye NISSAN Sunderland!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -extension

sabenapilot wrote:

Official documents disclosed by The Sun showed that just 6 Trade Continuation Agreements were now expected to be ready in time when the UK leaves on 29 March!
The 4 which already got a green light and have been widely reported: Switzerland, Chile, Faroe Islands and East Africa,
while 2 further small deals with Israel and the Palestinian Authority were still judged as “on track”, to be signed before brexit.
Amber warnings have been given to 9 negotiations including those with South Korea and Canada, defined as “off-track” and likely coming late (if ever).
Red warnings have been given to the hoped for roll over of no less than 23 other EU FTAs, including those with big trading partners like Japan, Turkey and Mexico. They have now been classed as “not possible to be completed'' even!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -extension

Aany sensible government would be clear and honest on this, and in an ordinary world would suggest a delay to Brexit would be a good idea to ensure a smoother transition... but of course we are not in an ordinary world at the moment.

Interesting also in the news today that through a civil service leak, Theresa Mays plan seems to be to run down the clock and then offer Her Withdrawal Agreement vs a "long" extension to Article 50... the thinking being that No deal would be off the table and that the ERG would have to come on board with her plan... as an extension could mean anything....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47218687

This has been denied by Theresa May...but it does have a truthful ring to it, in particular as we know that many in the cabinet have been privately trying to ensure businesses that a Hard Brexit will not happen.

Of course TM is running down the clock: even a blind man would have guessed that by now, wouldn't he?

The meaningful vote gets postponed and postponed, deadlines shift and move, friendly backbenchers come up with vague motions sending her back to Brussels to reopen talks and drag out things further and win even more time, all with the one and same purpose: coming back to the Commons with a clear choice in the last week of March only: vote for whatever TM will have on offer by then (pretty much the same as was voted down in JAN, plus some kind words) or she'll extend.

Her calculated guess is that this will blackmail just enough ERG members into voting for her deal in order to avoid Brexit from being postponed for a very very long period, or even outright cancelled. (as indeed, a second rejection means the whole WA has to be renegotiated from scratch of course)

Those ERG members will look like fools of course, but TM thinks its an acceptable price to pay as it will settle the rebelious feelings from europhobes within the Conservatives for a very long time AND it keeps the Conservative Party in charge of things, all without having to give in to Labour's sensible demands in return for their support and scrap her red lines.
She's now arrived at a point where she's seeking just 2 things: safe her OWN face and thus legacy for the future, while being able to say whatever Brexit is to be deliverd is exactly the one she and the Conservatives have always said it would be....

One problem is however the DUP will vote against her deal and although it might still pass with a few votes thanks to labour rebels, and she'll have lost her confidence and supply partner, so new elections may be pending soon after, but hey, there's another chance in then for her to fight an election and who knows even regain a majority as she only promissed not to run in the next planned elections in 2021 or whenever those were planned to be.

It all plays out nicely for her personally, and it saves the face of her party... for the UK's economy and businesses however, it means things will get a lot worse still, but clearly all of that is second to personal and party interests. nd yet that's the kind of people many in the UK want to hand back control to? Incredible indeed! Successes are guaranteed in future!

You have seen the polls in the UK? Support for a Hard Brexit is rising and the Tories would even win additional seats in an election.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 64001.html

sabenapilot wrote:

The meaningful vote gets postponed and postponed, deadlines shift and move, friendly backbenchers come up with vague motions sending her back to Brussels to reopen talks and drag out things further and win even more time, all with the one and same purpose: coming back to the Commons with a clear choice in the last week of March only: vote for whatever TM will have on offer by then (pretty much the same as was voted down in JAN, plus some kind words) or she'll extend.

She needs the EU for an extension of article 50. It's highly questionable if every EU country is willing to agree to it.

sabenapilot wrote:

It all plays out nicely for her personally, and it saves the face of her party... for the UK's economy and businesses however, it means things will get a lot worse still, but clearly all of that is second to personal and party interests.

Can you blame her? She has the most undesirable job in politics at the moment. Why she still wants doing it is a mystery to me.

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

The meaningful vote gets postponed and postponed, deadlines shift and move, friendly backbenchers come up with vague motions sending her back to Brussels to reopen talks and drag out things further and win even more time, all with the one and same purpose: coming back to the Commons with a clear choice in the last week of March only: vote for whatever TM will have on offer by then (pretty much the same as was voted down in JAN, plus some kind words) or she'll extend.

She needs the EU for an extension of article 50. It's highly questionable if every EU country is willing to agree to it.

A while back I read that the EU sentiment was that an extension would only be granted to allow preparations for a no-deal, or to allow time to hold a second referendum. An extension would very unlikely be granted for further negotiation towards an unknown goal.

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

The meaningful vote gets postponed and postponed, deadlines shift and move, friendly backbenchers come up with vague motions sending her back to Brussels to reopen talks and drag out things further and win even more time, all with the one and same purpose: coming back to the Commons with a clear choice in the last week of March only: vote for whatever TM will have on offer by then (pretty much the same as was voted down in JAN, plus some kind words) or she'll extend.

She needs the EU for an extension of article 50. It's highly questionable if every EU country is willing to agree to it.

An extension of just a few weeks to sort technicalities out will be granted;
an extension of say 3 to 6 months just to continue the domestic fighting in Parliament won't.
But a "lengthy extension" of say 1 to 2 years to start all over again from scratch? Nobody knows...
It's the revocation in all but name, really.

Anyway, it's allegedly the plan of the PM, according to her chief negotiator in Brussels, who was accidentally overheard by an ITV reporter in a pub in Brussels, talking to a eurocrat about the government strategy he's working with, so it's not just some rumour, it's what 'Team UK' in Brussels is actually working with.
Whether its realistic or not, remains to be seen, but it is fully consistent with all the actions we've seen from TM, up until this point.

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

It all plays out nicely for her personally, and it saves the face of her party... for the UK's economy and businesses however, it means things will get a lot worse still, but clearly all of that is second to personal and party interests.

Can you blame her? She has the most undesirable job in politics at the moment. Why she still wants doing it is a mystery to me.

Well, can I blame her?

She's doing her job with a lot of sense of duty, that's for sure, but it does seem to be the case that while she's trying her very best to deliver 'a' Brexit, she's undeniably also keeping a close eye on both her own legacy (the red lines which she herself drew and got her into trouble and yet which she doesn't want to let go off), as well as the future unity of her party.
She's nearing the point where those 2 are getting in direct conflict with the wellbeing of the country however, and yet she's not doing (yet) what a states(wo)man should do in that situation: put country before party and selfinterest, so yes, I can (start to) blame her as she increasingly shows signs of doing exactly this.

Remember there's an easy and clear path to 'a' Brexit: it has been offered by Jeremy Corbyn (of which I am no fan): sign up to a CU and stay close to (effectively 'in') the SM: it will get voted through Parliament with an overwhelming majority, it's not in conflict with the referendum's question and thus its result and it safeguards British businesses, jobs and the economy, while the EU has already signalled it will accept it too: in other words, Brexit could be done and dusted in 24 hours, with maybe a small extension of just a few weeks to fill in all the paperwork.
All it takes is for TM to lose some face by wiping out a few of her red lines and possibly also the support of the most radical part of her party (who's been voting against her pretty much any time anyway...), yet clearly that is too much to ask from her, even if it is to save the country from the biggest political, and possibly also soon economic crisis since WWII....

sabenapilot wrote:

Of course TM is running down the clock: even a blind man would have guessed that by now, wouldn't he?

The meaningful vote gets postponed and postponed, deadlines shift and move, friendly backbenchers come up with vague motions sending her back to Brussels to reopen talks and drag out things further and win even more time, all with the one and same purpose: coming back to the Commons with a clear choice in the last week of March only: vote for whatever TM will have on offer by then (pretty much the same as was voted down in JAN, plus some kind words) or she'll extend.

Her calculated guess is that this will blackmail just enough ERG members into voting for her deal in order to avoid Brexit from being postponed for a very very long period, or even outright cancelled. (as indeed, a second rejection means the whole WA has to be renegotiated from scratch of course)

Those ERG members will look like fools of course, but TM thinks its an acceptable price to pay as it will settle the rebelious feelings from europhobes within the Conservatives for a very long time AND it keeps the Conservative Party in charge of things, all without having to give in to Labour's sensible demands in return for their support and scrap her red lines.
She's now arrived at a point where she's seeking just 2 things: safe her OWN face and thus legacy for the future, while being able to say whatever Brexit is to be deliverd is exactly the one she and the Conservatives have always said it would be....

One problem is however the DUP will vote against her deal and although it might still pass with a few votes thanks to labour rebels, and she'll have lost her confidence and supply partner, so new elections may be pending soon after, but hey, there's another chance in then for her to fight an election and who knows even regain a majority as she only promissed not to run in the next planned elections in 2021 or whenever those were planned to be.

It all plays out nicely for her personally, and it saves the face of her party... for the UK's economy and businesses however, it means things will get a lot worse still, but clearly all of that is second to personal and party interests. nd yet that's the kind of people many in the UK want to hand back control to? Incredible indeed! Successes are guaranteed in future!

I don't think Labour's demands are realistic. They talk about a customs union with a say in future trade deals that the EU strikes, that's not going to happen. Close alignment with the single market, what is that exactly and how does it compare to the current SM arrangements and EEA/EFTA?

That is what winds me up about Labour on Brexit, they're intentionally trying to avoid the subject (probably because Corbyn doesn't really care much for the EU) and are instead issuing wishy-washy alternatives as part of their broader agenda to get into power. I noticed how Corbyn for all his talk about democracy is still ignoring the motion they passed at conference about advocating a second referendum. This from the other day shows how they're not fit for office and says what you need to know about his view on a second referendum...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 73671.html

The ERG's hand is weak in my view as they played it early by trying to oust May by a no-confidence vote and lost.

Boeing74741R wrote:

I don't think Labour's demands are realistic. They talk about a customs union with a say in future trade deals that the EU strikes, that's not going to happen. Close alignment with the single market, what is that exactly and how does it compare to the current SM arrangements and EEA/EFTA?

You can have talks with the EU on any future trade deals it strikes (and to which you are a part as a member of its CU), and the EU will kindly listen of course, but you're never going to have the same weight as you'd have as an EU member for the simple fact you don't have a vote any longer on the approval of those trade deals.
Being closely alligned with the SM, the same rule taking will follow from that.
If you want to have a vote/veto on it, you'll have to be IN it, so that means EU membership,
If you want to make use of it, you'll have to be subject TO it: that means CU and/or EEA membership.
Labour should indeed make it clear they seek CU+SM membership, also known as Norway+, to make use of it.
Otherwise they are falling in the same trap of the Tories which have been -and still are- pretending the UK can have its cake and eat it at the same time!

However, as the UK is finding out much to Dr. Fox' own disbelief, the very same rule taking is going to follow regardless whether the UK is in a CU and in the SM with the EU or not, for the simple reason that most of the third countries it will approach for a FTA will already have struck one with the EU (or will favour striking one with the EU over a FTA with just the UK) and the EU always sets it as one of its preconditions to gain the most favoured nation status, meaning the other country can't undercut its deals later, nor do things differently than how it does them with the EU.
The EU simply doesn't want countries which have a FTA with the EU to serve as a sort of trading hub through which others could trade more easily with Europea than they could do directly.

Boeing74741R wrote:

The ERG's hand is weak in my view as they played it early by trying to oust May by a no-confidence vote and lost.

Indeed, TM will put them in front of their responsablity by the end of March: accept pretty much the very same deal they voted down in JAN, or have brexit delayed by a very long time.
She's probably still going to be kind on them by letting them pretend much has changed to the deal and notably the backstop because they remain party members after all and because she's going to be willing to pocked the alledged diplomatic success, but make no mistake about it, it will in essense be the same deal, WITH the backstop and WITH all the provisions which will turn the UK into a real vassal state of Europe (and of which you hear no more these days because all of the critics focus on just the backstop alone, as if the rest of the deal is such a brilliant one?!)

LJ wrote:

BTW does somebody know what both parties actually agreed?

Details are getting out... and they are not nice!

In further proof of just how much 'better' bilateral deals struck by a 'sovereign' UK are going to be compared to those struck by the EU on its behalf, it has emerged that Switzerland is going to set quotas on UK citizens seeking a work permit in the Alpine country, post Brexit!
Just like nationals of say Japan, Brits will have to ask and compete for a work permit in case of a no deal brexit, and there will be just 3,500 places for them reserved!

https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/docum ... 73962.html

Currently, some 40,000 UK citizens benefit from full freedom of movement under the generous EU-Switzerland set of bilaterals, and EU27 citizens will of course continue to benefit from this in future too, but unless the UK can remain under the EU's umbrella, this will immediately end upon Brexit!

Remember Swiss voters instructed their government to try to limit freedom of movement from the EU some 3 years ago in a referendum, but Switzerland has been unsuccessful in implementing this because of the guillotine clauses in its bilateral agreements with the EU, which would effectively distroy its economy upon ending freedom of movement.
it seems that as soon as you break away from the EU, the Swiss feel they have the upper hand and are presenting you with some interesting new consequencces of your regained sovereignty, isnt it? Oh well, at least Brits will be able to send in that new blue passport to the Swiss embassy, hoping they'll give you a work visa in it!

Can't wait for Dr. Fox to show up in Washington, hoping to conclude a swift FTA with the USofA... now that's going to be interesting, going by how even the Swiss are already screwing the UK over!

sabenapilot wrote:

LJ wrote:

BTW does somebody know what both parties actually agreed?

Details are getting out... and they are not nice!

At least it explained why the details weren't released prior to signing the agreement. However, on a positive note, they're already talking about relaxing some rules......

Ford's CEO has reportedly briefed the PM that it is preparing to move out its production (and axe more than 7,000) jobs in case of a hard brexit!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

In a statement, Ford confirmed they had been in contact with the PM, yet declined to deny a warning had been issued, instead saying: "We have long urged the U.K. government and parliament to work together to avoid the country leaving the EU on a no-deal-, hard Brexit-basis. We will take whatever action is necessary to preserve the competitiveness of our European business.”

seahawk wrote:

You have seen the polls in the UK? Support for a Hard Brexit is rising and the Tories would even win additional seats in an election.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 64001.html

General consenus in my area of the country is hard no deal brexit.

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

LJ wrote:

BTW does somebody know what both parties actually agreed?

Details are getting out... and they are not nice!

At least it explained why the details weren't released prior to signing the agreement. However, on a positive note, they're already talking about relaxing some rules......

I think it's quite telling that facts have to emerge through the Swiss government website, while you'd expect the UK government is the one who's most eager to show some positive news...

Note how the Swiss government explicitly mentions that should a transitional deal still be struck between the UK and the EU, the FoM for UK citizens will continue as before and no quota whatsoever will apply for the entire duration of that deal.

Clearly the Swiss don't dare to consider revoking rights from Brits drawn from EU treaties, even if they are then no longer EU citizens, yet they don't hesitate for a second to use their full strength the moment the EU is no longer involved. Tells you quite something about the political clout of the EU vs that of the UK, doesn't it?
Looks to me like a burgundy passport carries massively more weight than a blue one!

Meanwhile, as the UK struggles to even just keep the economic status quo, the European Parliament just approved the recently concluded EU-Singapore FTA (aka EUSFTA)

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/bu ... p-11239836

"It will come into effect as soon as the respective internal administrative processes are completed", according to Singapore's Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, "and will serve as stategic pathfinder to an eventual EU-ASEAN trade and investment agreement."

Dyson will be most pleased to learn it is not moving out of the UK for no reason then... to, indeed... Singapore.

And now American car manufacturer Ford is "making preparations" to move production out of the UK - “This isn’t about contingencies any more - we are taking steps because of the uncertainty. It’s real,”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKCN1Q12SK

Ford directly employees 13,000 in the UK and has three main sites:

• Bridgend (71.4% voted Leave in 2016 referendum)
• Dagenham (62.4% voted Leave in 2016 referendum)
• Dunton (68.6% voted Leave in 2016 referendum / Basildon constituency)

Any closure would of course have knock on consequences to many other UK businesses and jobs.

It is so sad that the majority of constituents in these areas fell for the Brexit spin, and wrongly dismissed the threat to their own futures as "project fear"

Richard28 wrote:

And now American car manufacturer Ford is "making preparations" to move production out of the UK - “This isn’t about contingencies any more - we are taking steps because of the uncertainty. It’s real,”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKCN1Q12SK

Ford directly employees 13,000 in the UK and has three main sites:

• Bridgend (71.4% voted Leave in 2016 referendum)
• Dagenham (62.4% voted Leave in 2016 referendum)
• Dunton (68.6% voted Leave in 2016 referendum / Basildon constituency)

Any closure would of course have knock on consequences to many other UK businesses and jobs.

It is so sad that the majority of constituents in these areas fell for the Brexit spin, and wrongly dismissed the threat to their own futures as "project fear"

it's common courtesy for a CEO of a big multinational with large production sites to inform the government about any pending 'readjustments' a little bit before they are made official so the government can prepare their communication and set up after care for the affected workers and their areas...

Clearly something big is coming from Ford in the next few weeks, and it's not going to be yielding a brexit divident, I'm afraid.