UK and EU reach trade deal. Brexit is over

a reply to: RAY1990

it was about deportation of EU nationals and by right they had freedom of movement once they're no longer incarcerated.

It is The EU we are discussing here, or more to the point The UK leaving The EU.

EU nationals living in The UK will no longer have the protection of The European Court Of Justice to stop their deportation, as The UK will no longer be bound by The ECJ.

Free at last and free to prosper.

BREXIT mission completed.

a reply to: alldaylong

It is The EU we are discussing here, or more to the point The UK leaving The EU.

I know, the initial point was about terrorists seeking a cushy life in the UK I believe. I was stating that ECJ had no say anyways.

EU nationals living in The UK will no longer have the protection of The European Court Of Justice to stop their deportation, as The UK will no longer be bound by The ECJ.

I'm not entirely sure the rulings on residential status and criminality so we might still end up 'housing' some EU citizens, regardless the EU won't have jurisdiction so that much is true!

Merry Christmas

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: fusionfilm



All I wanted as a brexit supporter was to be able to hold the people who make our laws accountable at the ballot box.
Something we were unable to do under the EU system.

Eh, So you are going to hold the Queen and the house of Lords accountable at the ballot box?. Good luck with that.

Neither The Queen or The House Of Lords make laws.

You know that already.

Both queen and The House of Lords have to agree to the Laws before they can start to happen. You do know that already?.

So there you have it. Two unelected bodies in charge of the Lawmaking process. Held to account right enough.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: fusionfilm



All I wanted as a brexit supporter was to be able to hold the people who make our laws accountable at the ballot box.
Something we were unable to do under the EU system.

Eh, So you are going to hold the Queen and the house of Lords accountable at the ballot box?. Good luck with that.

Neither The Queen or The House Of Lords make laws.

You know that already.

Both queen and The House of Lords have to agree to the Laws before they can start to happen. You do know that already?.

So there you have it. Two unelected bodies in charge of the Lawmaking process. Held to account right enough.

The Queen doesn't make Laws, she just put her stamp of approval on them.

The House Of Lords can be over ridden by The Commons Using " The Salisbury Convention "

I thought you would know that.

I'll defer judgement until we get the actual details.

My initial thoughts are one's of cautious optimism.

I sincerely hope we are now free from the shackles of the EU and its dictates.
But we still need a close and harmonious relationship with our continental neighbours.

If this deal does what it says on the tin then fair play to both Boris and his boys and the EU team - something I never, ever thought I'd say.
And all those people currently residing in Westminster will no longer have a convenient scapegoat......its up to us to make them accountable for their actions and failings.

Personally I see this as an opportunity to force through some of the change we so desperately need.
I doubt it will happen though.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: fusionfilm



All I wanted as a brexit supporter was to be able to hold the people who make our laws accountable at the ballot box.
Something we were unable to do under the EU system.

Eh, So you are going to hold the Queen and the house of Lords accountable at the ballot box?. Good luck with that.

Neither The Queen or The House Of Lords make laws.

You know that already.

Both queen and The House of Lords have to agree to the Laws before they can start to happen. You do know that already?.

So there you have it. Two unelected bodies in charge of the Lawmaking process. Held to account right enough.

The Queen doesn't make Laws, she just put her stamp of approval on them.

The House Of Lords can be over ridden by The Commons Using " The Salisbury Convention "

I thought you would know that.

You can try and word however you like, We both know that the Unelected House of Lords and the unelected QoE both play a major role in making laws that affect us all. Without the Queen signing it off and the House of Lords backing off, no laws would be passed.

Hey, if you want to give these bastards free reign that affects your life then that's your call. Expect worsening working conditions, longer hours, and less pay. They have already stated that we need to be able to compete with the likes of China and that workers and human rights are not really high on their agenda.

As for the Salisbury Convention, Does that not just cover the Policy promised by a party in its manifesto?. Either way, it doesn't alter the former from being a fact that two unelected bodies play a part in the enactment of lawmaking in the UK.

So, once again. Prey tell how you will "be able to hold the people who make our laws accountable at the ballot box" ? How will you hold the likes of Evgeny Lebedev to account. Taking back control.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

For The Tories to stay in power they now rely on the old so-called Red Wall seats they won in the last election.
They won't keep those seats if they introduce legislation that worsens working conditions, mean longer working hours and less pay.

As you know, The Queen has no real power at all and if she ever tried to unduly influence government policy it would result in a constitutional crisis.
It will be interesting to see how Charles acts when or if he ascends to the throne....I think he's arrogant enough to actually try to influence and/or change government policy.

I suspect that would be the death knell for The Monarchy.
Only the future will tell.

The second House is a disgrace and an anachronism.
But it doesn't really have that much power other than to delay legislation.
Such delays usually result in watering down or moderating more extreme parts of legislation.

At the very least the majority of those sitting in the so-called 'upper house' should be democratically elected.

At the end of the day party politics has outlived its fit-for-purpose and radical reform is required of both houses and our electoral procedures.

Anyone can make a bad deal. Can Boris make a good deal?

We don't know this yet, until the fine print has been reviewed.

I certainly hope it's a good deal, so we can put Brexit behind us and make a fist of the reality, rather than dwelling on the shoulda, coulda, woulda. Let's wait and see.

ETA, one thing for certain imo is that in the short term this opens the door to the Tory-extremist aiming to turn us into a slave labour workforce and low-tax haven for the corporate rich. But, long term, this freedom will give the Tories enough rope to indulge their greed and hang themselves at the next general election. People worried that Brexit has freed the Tories do whatever they want for the rich should remember that it's also freed the opposition to do whatever they want for the poor once they inevitably get into power.

a reply to: McGinty

Anyone can make a bad deal. Can Boris make a good deal? We don't know this yet, until the fine print has been reviewed.

Irish Fishermen not happy at all.

The Irish fishing industry currently catches 60 per cent of its mackerel in particular, in UK waters. But Sean O'Donoghoe, chief executive of the fishermen's organisation, said they would now only get a 13 per cent share. “It is totally unfair for mackerel that are spawned off the west coast of Ireland, 80 per cent of them.

We’re now ending up with only a share of 13% and the UK has a share of 71%. This is totally unacceptable, and we’re not going to lie down and accept it,” he said.

www.breakingnews.ie...

Shame.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: McGinty

Anyone can make a bad deal. Can Boris make a good deal? We don't know this yet, until the fine print has been reviewed.

Irish Fishermen not happy at all.

The Irish fishing industry currently catches 60 per cent of its mackerel in particular, in UK waters. But Sean O'Donoghoe, chief executive of the fishermen's organisation, said they would now only get a 13 per cent share. “It is totally unfair for mackerel that are spawned off the west coast of Ireland, 80 per cent of them.

We’re now ending up with only a share of 13% and the UK has a share of 71%. This is totally unacceptable, and we’re not going to lie down and accept it,” he said.

www.breakingnews.ie...

Shame.

Hold on... where are these fish caught? In British waters or Irish waters?

If its British then who the hell do they think they are exactly?

If we have the lions share and they are caught in British waters then they need to count themselves lucky we are giving them any of OUR FISH.

a reply to: fusionfilm

Exactly. What do these people not understand about the word sovereignty? It's our territory.

And by the way this 5 year transition period doesn't mean that in 5 years it ours an ours alone. It just means that in 5 years time, they'll renegotiate and continue to let the European super trawlers rape our seas. It's f@cking joke.

a reply to: fusionfilm
Congrats brits on taking back your sovereignty!
Merry Christmas!

originally posted by: RMFX1
And by the way this 5 year transition period doesn't mean that in 5 years it ours an ours alone.

A five-year transition period gives the EU fishing indutry time to adjust in increments. It also gives the UK fishing industry time to plan how improve the situation in the domestic industry. For example, the UK fishing fleet needs to plan new trawlers and work out how they are going to get UK people into the industry, lest they end up hiring French trawlers who are just UK-flagged, which would defeat the object of the exercise.

Considering the EU wanted a 20 year transition, this looks quite a good outcome.

The UK position was all about taking back control of fishing. This has been achieved.

a reply to: RMFX1

It’s a bargaining chip. To the government it’s no more and no less than that. That’s bad for the fishermen, but good for everyone else in the U.K. that gets a better deal than they’d otherwise had. When something is high value, but effects a minority of election voters it will be mercilessly weaponised as it’s leveraged in negotiations. The fish stocks will continue to be mere leverage while they continue to exist, in 5, 10, 100 years.

The fishermen need to find a way to exploit whatever ownership and control they have over this precious resource the best they can to get a fairer share of the national gains made. Is that via blockades, or similar legal, but aggressive action? Could they band together to raise prices of the fish they sell to England to compensate the money lost? But then would England simply buy their own fish back from France’s catch instead? I wouldn’t put it past the Tories to propose to Macron that they give him even more of the fish in return for you selling us a proportion at a lower rate than the Irish.

Many moves seem to have a counter move, but that’s only because I don’t know the business - surely there’s leverage somewhere that the Irish fishermen can exploit. It’s not going to be easy, or pretty and I don’t how, but the fishermen need to think about their stake laterally, just as the Tories have done to them.

a reply to: fusionfilm

West of Ireland is what was quoted.

Maybe we'll see a repeat of the Cod wars. As an Englishman I'll state it won't be the first time we've took advantage of fishing rights and the status quo.

a reply to: RMFX1

It’s a bargaining chip. To the government it’s no more and no less than that. That’s bad for the fishermen, but good for everyone else in the U.K. that gets a better deal than they’d otherwise had. When something is high value, but effects a minority of election voters it will be mercilessly weaponised as it’s leveraged in negotiations. The fish stocks will continue to be mere leverage while they continue to exist, in 5, 10, 100 years.

The fishermen need to find a way to exploit whatever ownership and control they have over this precious resource the best they can to get a fairer share of the national gains made. Is that via blockades, or similar legal, but aggressive action? Could they band together to raise prices of the fish they sell to England to compensate the money lost? But then would England simply buy their own fish back from France’s catch instead? I wouldn’t put it past the Tories to propose to Macron that they give him even more of the fish in return for you selling us a proportion at a lower rate than the Irish.

Many moves seem to have a counter move, but that’s only because I don’t know the business - surely there’s leverage somewhere that the Irish fishermen can exploit. It’s not going to be easy, or pretty and I don’t how, but the fishermen need to think about their stake laterally, just as the Tories have done to them.

As a professor of EU Law, Michael Dougan has more understanding of the implications of Boris Johnson's trade deal than most if not all of the MPs who voted on it today. His thoughts below:
1) This is a massive and complex document, covering very diverse & highly specialist fields. No single person could ever plausibly claim properly to master/understand it. So I’ve focused on my own (“big picture”) interests. Not, eg the (in fact marginal) details of fishing quotas.
2) Let’s start with how draft treaty is being framed by UK Gov & client press. They compare it to “no deal” & thus treat it as some sort of triumph. Well: even on own terms, that is far from accurate: for many sectors, draft treaty is barely better than no deal at all.
3) But of course: such UK Gov framing of draft treaty = entirely if sadly typically misleading. Real comparison should be draft treaty versus what UK already enjoyed for 45 years as a Member State of the EU. And judged by that benchmark: Johnson’s proposed deal is truly pathetic.
4) Draft treaty gives UK nothing it didn't already enjoy, in relations with EU, as a Member State in its own right. Eg Johnson boasts about “zero tariffs and zero quotas” – even though we had that already for decades and Brexit simply risked throwing even those basic things away.
5) More important than slim pickings offered by draft treaty = what it doesn’t cover & therefore what will be definitively lost. In that regard: some media attention, e.g. about UK deliberately turning back on Erasmus & (equally bizarrely) on structured foreign policy cooperation.
6) But the losses go much, much further: eg no more free movement of goods (tariffs & quotas being only the most obvious & easiest trade barriers); no more free movement for services (indeed hardly anything at all for most sectors); almost total loss of movement rights for people.
7) So: all this draft treaty offers is a few scraps from the table of what we previously enjoyed as full members of the club. Otherwise: Brexit takes away vast numbers of our rights, freedoms, benefits and opportunities; to be replaced by new barriers, costs, closures and losses.
8) That damning analysis is reinforced by basic legal structures of draft treaty. Within the EU, rules & obligations = concrete rights for individuals & businesses that we can assert & enforce for ourselves. Our legal freedoms & protections are vested directly in us as citizens.
9) By contrast: under draft treaty, even such meagre rules & obligations as will exist = only between EU & UK as international actors. We, individuals & businesses who are actually meant to live with those rules, can claim / enforce nothing for ourselves from / under this treaty.
10) So not only is Brexit the modern world's biggest exercise in cross-border economic & security segregation. It’s an equally serious legal disenfranchisement of the citizen – effectively stripped of myriad legal protections, right across Europe as well as within UK itself.
11) And all of that is besides long term damage to UK’s leadership in Europe/influence across rest of world; UK reputation as trustworthy international actor; UK internal cohesion thanks to shocking treatment of Scotland & Wales – none of which this draft treaty even touches upon.
12) What benefits do Brexitists offer as compensation for so much damage? “Sovereignty”. Something they had never lost in first place. & which in reality means: freedom to diverge [ie deregulate social standards] & strike trade deals with US [from position of relative weakness].
13) In any case: even most the fanatical Brexit loon can’t believe we’ll ever forgive their cruelty to EU & UK migrant citizens, indifference to stability in NI, contempt for basic values of honesty/integrity, debasement of UK democracy – again, none of which draft treaty can repair.
14) Johnson might think he "settled" UK's place in Europe “once & for all”. Starmer might be happy to play along. Those of us with principles & backbone think otherwise. As Brexitists lie in bed at night let’s make sure they're plagued by a little voice: “we’ll rejoin one day...”

a reply to: Soloprotocol

If that had not been written by Michael Dougan, a " remainer " then it would have more credence.

Just another sore loser.

If The UK is not happy with this " deal " they just have to give The EU 12 months notice and terminate it.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

A long post. I could pick several areas where I think there is stuck-record inaccuracy, but I'll stick with two:

One – UK influence

Several points about the UK losing influence in the EU and the world. The UK had no influence in the EU as was demonstrated by Cameron's failure to get any concessions from the EU. This intransigence and inflexibility precipitated the Referendum and the result.

While it is true the UK kept the balance between France and Germany, it’s a bit boring being the mediator rather than the policy-setter.

Outside of the constraints of the EU the UK is likely to have elevated influence, as already demonstrated by the number and types of trade deals delivered, or in the pipeline. The EU has been reduced by the UK leaving – it is no longer the biggest economic bloc, for example. The UK has a very high soft-power rating.

Two – Erasmus

The costs of Erasmus were very high and benefitted students from mainland Europe more than it did the UK. Twice as many EU students came to the UK, and why not? The UK has many world-leading universities. Erasmus has been criticised as being elitist, so not the type of “inclusive” which UK education is trying to be – noting that under the SNP the gap of university access between poor and rich has widened, but that’s Scotland’s deteriorating education system for you, eh?

Anyway, the replacement Turing Scheme will be much better than Erasmus. At the very least it will enable students to be educated outside of the EU (if they chose), where they have closer cultural links e.g. in India, or Australia. Frankly, universities in mainland Europe are not world-leading either. Around 15,000 UK students a year benefitted from Erasmus, but 35,000 per year will benefit under Turing.

It’s the mantra of the age to whine-on about the loss of a flawed programme when something better comes along.