Brexit

You've done that thing again

Stating it as something we will HAVE to do.....when really it's just something the EU want us to do.

As you quite rightly point out though state aid is already prevalent within the EU countries and also with other countries they trade with already. So why we'd have to commit to not use it I'm not so sure. Doesn't seem very level to me.

 

Well yes and no. They might be clear but they certainly aren't "You can't allow state aid"

 

Isn't that what that says?

We can subsidise our companies to compete with German and French counterparts within the EU. So why would we accept not being allowed to outside of it?

 

I didn't mean to cut the last bit off to change the meaning.

I was focusing on the but that says we can't do it when the rules allow for us to actually do it. Not trying to be difficult on it.

 

It looks like Barnier and the EU are now taking us seriously :

"THE UK secured a major Brexit victory today as the EU finally blinked on its trade deal demands.

The EU is now ready to drop its demands for broad agreement on the areas of divergence before drafting a trade text - something the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier had initially refused to do.

Mr Barnier has now confirmed he will begin working on draft legislation - a clear indication Brussels wants a deal agreed as soon as possible.

The EU has also sensationally backed down from its threat to suspend trade talks over the UK’s controversial Internal Market Bill.

No tariff agreement and you can share our fishing waters, that's for a price of course negotiated on an annual basis.

 

The fishermen seem quite pissed off so I wouldn't describe it as a victory

 

The fishing deal will be done as soon as the EU agree the other items outstanding, That EU countries can fish in our waters is not the issue, The kernel of the issue is that the UK wants to set annual quotas for the EU at our discretion and the EU wants to continue with the present deal that still has quotas but is an ongoing agreement and a permanent arrangement subject to both sides agreeing any alteration to the rules

 

I was more referring to the concessions we'd made to Europe, read a couple articles now with some angry fisherman quotes in them. I think this has been misreported in that I've seen articles on both sides declaring victory or saying the govts climbed down, when really I think both sides have given a bit of ground. I think that this shows how bad no deal would be, as it comes hot on the heels of people like the CBI telling the govt we need a deal or the jobs basically fecked. The Norway deal is fine but again I can't see the fishing industry being happy with any kind of access to our territorial waters given what they were promised

Taken from a guardian piece on it : However, UK fisheries leaders warned the government not to sell them out. Barrie Deas, the head of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, said: “What we wouldn’t agree to is surrendering fishing rights in order to have a trade deal.

“There is no expectation within the UK fishing industry that the UK will back down on fisheries. If anything, the commitments that have been made to the industry are stronger now than when the negotiations started. We’ve been given clear and unequivocal commitments.”

 

They are still talking fishing with the EU after Emmanuel Macron has been put in his place, reading this it looks like the EU will have to aim a little lower than the status quo,
European capitals decided the bloc could soften the blow for its fisherman using a special £4.5billion Brexit reserve to bail them out.
As above a sensible deal has been struck with Norway, we fish their waters they fish ours with annual quota's agreed with both parties.
I know its the Daily Express but gives an insight to how things have changed once Boris got the reworded EU withdrawal agreement through Parliment.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1341437/Brexit-news-fishing-uk-eu-latest-emmanuel-macron-trade-deal-update-fisheries?utm_source=express_newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=DailyExpress1&utm_campaign=politics_newsletter

 

Not me you need to placate man its the fishing industry. They seem to think they've been promised a lot more than what they're going to end up with

 

Im not trying to placate anyone just posting the situation with regards the ongoing negotiations with the EU. If that's the case the fishermen are jumping the gun, Norway must be laughing their heads off.
Under May she was a remainer and her team negotiated in a similar way keep the status quo as much as possible, Barnier thought all his Christmas's had come together not once did she threaten no deal.
The negotiations are far different with David Frost and his team, once the EU see we mean business they do all they can to make it hard on the UK as they have every right to do trying to keep us within EU guidelines so we do the same and redraft parts of the withdrawal document stating that we don't want to use it but we will if necessary.
Apparently as we post the EU have launched a legal challenge to the above document, brinkmanship to the very end.

 

We've openly admitted several times what we are doing with that bill breaks international law, it isn't brinkmanship to uphold international law

It was also us that started it with the brinkmanship so again, we cant moan when people treat us the way we treat them.

 

Only if implemented, as Boris said our insurance policy.
No one moaning the brexiteers never expected an easy ride, but then again Barnier didnt expect David Frost.
At least the EU recognise the need to keep negotiations going, by the time a ruling is made it could be December.

 

Boris made it quite clear when he spoke at the dispatch box on the first reading that it was our insurance policy he hoped we wouldnt have to use but we would if necessary.
During negotiations you use everything thing at your disposal and until the government implement it we arent breaking any agreement.
It will be interesting how the courts judge the situation as I say until we implement it we arent breaking international law, it's a game who blinks first, or we could walk away "no deal is better than a bad deal".

 

The fact hes given concessions on fishing after the CBI said the jobs fecked if we don't get a deal tells me no deal would be a disaster and Johnson knows it. Thats fine, but we've said what we're doing breaks international law so we can;t moan if somebody sues us for doing so. Even Nigel Farage agrees with the EU on this which says a lot

 

We were told at the start this would be the easiest deal in history, and were repeatedly told this would be an easy ride. 'oven ready deal' etc etc