BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

Or that Canada/US are converging whereas this is the first FTA in history to deal with divergence.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/the_chrisshaw/status/1304382385321119744?s=21

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/lucyhough33/status/1304456457132355589?s=21

Shouldn’t have signed if you didn’t want it. Argh

coopster_the_1st

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/lucyhough33/status/1304456457132355589?s=21

Shouldn’t have signed if you didn’t want it. Argh

MEP's are the EU's problem, not the UK's.

You are proving you still don't understand why we have left.

coopster_the_1st

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

We are aware how integrated the UK had become under the EU, hence the reason for voting to leave.

We didn't want or need that level of integration, particularly the political overhead, to trade with other European countries

briantrumpet

However they spin this, it's either 100% incompetence, if they didn't understand what they were signing, or 100% dishonesty, signing something they planned on reneging on. It's not like they were pressing the 'Buy it now' option on a Christmas jumper eBay - this was an international treaty covered by the Vienna convention, and they are the UK Government, with the whole machinery of government available to scrutinise it.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

Your point was about why it was easy to do a deal with Japan and not easy with the EU.

rick_chasey

U.K. has such leverage the EU has apparently bounced it into signing a treaty it didn’t understand “threatened the integrity of the U.K.”.

Should have read this thread.

It’s almost like the EU dropped the backstop when the U.K. gave massive concessions around things like state aid, border checks etc, rather than, the force and will of the BoJo personality.

rjsterry

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

We are aware how integrated the UK had become under the EU, hence the reason for voting to leave.

We didn't want or need that level of integration, particularly the political overhead, to trade with other European countries

So why did you vote for a party with a manifesto commitment to maintain EU involvement in a customs border within UK territory? It was written on the tin.

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

We are aware how integrated the UK had become under the EU, hence the reason for voting to leave.

We didn't want or need that level of integration, particularly the political overhead, to trade with other European countries

So why did you vote for a party with a manifesto commitment to maintain EU involvement in a customs border within UK territory? It was written on the tin.

I voted for a party that wanted an FTA with the EU, which would make the remoaner fake outrage obsolete.

There is only one side of the negotiations that is being intentionally awkward and that is not the UK

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

We are aware how integrated the UK had become under the EU, hence the reason for voting to leave.

We didn't want or need that level of integration, particularly the political overhead, to trade with other European countries

So why did you vote for a party with a manifesto commitment to maintain EU involvement in a customs border within UK territory? It was written on the tin.

I voted for a party that wanted an FTA with the EU, which would make the remoaner fake outrage obsolete.

There is only one side of the negotiations that is being intentionally awkward and that is not the UK

Are the UK government being accidentally awkward when they object to their own agreement?

surrey_commuter

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

We are aware how integrated the UK had become under the EU, hence the reason for voting to leave.

We didn't want or need that level of integration, particularly the political overhead, to trade with other European countries

So why did you vote for a party with a manifesto commitment to maintain EU involvement in a customs border within UK territory? It was written on the tin.

I voted for a party that wanted an FTA with the EU, which would make the remoaner fake outrage obsolete.

There is only one side of the negotiations that is being intentionally awkward and that is not the UK

You voted for a party who you thought wanted a FTA with the EU.

It has all been downhill for you since you voted leave to reopen the negotiations

surrey_commuter

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

It is strange how many people don’t get this simple fact and think we are owed the FTA of our choice

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

It is strange how many people don’t get this simple fact and think we are owed the FTA of our choice

It's not a fact. Both parties made commitments in the withdrawal agreement about the negotiations, so they are not free to do as they wish.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

It is strange how many people don’t get this simple fact and think we are owed the FTA of our choice

It's not a fact. Both parties made commitments in the withdrawal agreement about the negotiations, so they are not free to do as they wish.

I'm assuming sungod is referring to the position before the signing of the agreement.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

It is strange how many people don’t get this simple fact and think we are owed the FTA of our choice

It's not a fact. Both parties made commitments in the withdrawal agreement about the negotiations, so they are not free to do as they wish.

If we feel that they are in breach then we should take appropriate action.

rjsterry

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

We are aware how integrated the UK had become under the EU, hence the reason for voting to leave.

We didn't want or need that level of integration, particularly the political overhead, to trade with other European countries

So why did you vote for a party with a manifesto commitment to maintain EU involvement in a customs border within UK territory? It was written on the tin.

I voted for a party that wanted an FTA with the EU, which would make the remoaner fake outrage obsolete.

There is only one side of the negotiations that is being intentionally awkward and that is not the UK

So you just ignored the deal that Johnson had made. Figures.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

We are aware how integrated the UK had become under the EU, hence the reason for voting to leave.

We didn't want or need that level of integration, particularly the political overhead, to trade with other European countries

So why did you vote for a party with a manifesto commitment to maintain EU involvement in a customs border within UK territory? It was written on the tin.

I voted for a party that wanted an FTA with the EU, which would make the remoaner fake outrage obsolete.

There is only one side of the negotiations that is being intentionally awkward and that is not the UK

So you just ignored the deal that Johnson had made. Figures.

You're forgetting that even when you've signed an agreement, everything is dem furriners' fault.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

It is strange how many people don’t get this simple fact and think we are owed the FTA of our choice

It's not a fact. Both parties made commitments in the withdrawal agreement about the negotiations, so they are not free to do as they wish.

If we feel that they are in breach then we should take appropriate action.

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

It is strange how many people don’t get this simple fact and think we are owed the FTA of our choice

It's not a fact. Both parties made commitments in the withdrawal agreement about the negotiations, so they are not free to do as they wish.

If we feel that they are in breach then we should take appropriate action.

The UK probably should have done over the interpretation of A50. Proving bad faith in negotiations is likely to be harder and take a long time, but nonetheless is an option to consider.

coopster_the_1st

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...

The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.

rjsterry

coopster_the_1st said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...

The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.

The government you voted for agreed to this foreign power controlling its affairs in the full knowledge that that is what it was doing. Now it's found that it's not quite so easy to wriggle out of as it had assumed. You'd have to be made of stone to not enjoy the schadenfreude.

tailwindhome

An FTA doesn't make the NI Protocol go away.

tailwindhome

Give us what we want or we'll won't cut our country in half is quite the threat when you think about it.

spatt77

This may be the pre- cursor to the complete collapse of the WA and instead of the £39 billion agreed its a couple of billion! Why pay £39 billion when a FTA is obviously not on offer!

coopster_the_1st

spatt77 said:

This may be the pre- cursor to the complete collapse of the WA and instead of the £39 billion agreed its a couple of billion! Why pay £39 billion when a FTA is obviously not on offer!

This was the biggest fault of the WA negotiation. They should have tied all post leaving payments to there being an agreed FTA.

pangolin

briantrumpet said:

However they spin this, it's either 100% incompetence, if they didn't understand what they were signing, or 100% dishonesty, signing something they planned on reneging on. It's not like they were pressing the 'Buy it now' option on a Christmas jumper eBay - this was an international treaty covered by the Vienna convention, and they are the UK Government, with the whole machinery of government available to scrutinise it.

Sorry Brian this is nonsense. They're completely capable if being dishonest and incompetent.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.

The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.

I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.

Or that Canada/US are converging whereas this is the first FTA in history to deal with divergence.

So what? My point is that it blows the EU 'proximity' argument out of the water.

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...

The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.

Michael Howard?

Stevo_666

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Japan trade deal agreed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement

Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏

Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.

What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?

It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.

So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?

Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.

To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.

This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.

I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.

I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.

How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?

The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.

the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiations

the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one

brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault

Agree with your first two points, although the basis that it is two sovereign bodies negotiating is pretty much a given in FTAs - so as I've said before, what the EU is trying to do is exceptional and out of line.

And it's funny when the EU tries to get a better deal that's just negotiation,: when we do the same there's outrage on here. Especially when pretty much all of us live in the UK.