11 minutes ago, Tofer said:

And by the way, this is an international forum, and I believe the international language is English.

 

I stopped communicating in French after being humiliated in my attempts at making a reasonable effort by your wonderful countrymen.

The same can happen here in reverse way to non native English ones  ....

Strange enough almost never done by  Americans on the board ????

 

It never stopped me ….????

1 hour ago, transam said:

You really are a newbie bundle of laughs....????

Yes. 

 

54 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

I think we all know that there cannot be any "no deal" between us, the matter is what deal (right now it's extremely limited) and when (right now I think it's still 50-50 we get a deal next january).

 

the present situation is really unconfortable for the UK as uncertainty itself is a serious liability, so I understand the UK is not willing to prolong the "transition" situation.

 

 

The main asset of the UK (at the hefty cost of years and years of austerity) was a controlled national debt (-20% compared to the national debt of France). Now with Covid-19, this major asset is gone... I'm not sure how "global britain" could compete with the EU on low taxation.

 

 

 

uk_debt_june_2020_png-640[1].webp 18.79 kB · 0 downloads

Debt as an asset? Whatever. I should check your numbers again. Do you think that the virus cost will only affect the UK?

Its not happening. Just leave and let the brexiteers rejoice. Until reality hits.

Sorry forgot the source for my quote 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/16/boris-johnson-australia-style-trading-system-brexit-uk?CMP=

25 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

No, that was a laugh at the citizens of UK, if it´s a fact that it is like the post I quoted said. You really must learn to not lose grip of the thread.

Right.

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes. 

 

Debt as an asset? Whatever. I should check your numbers again. Do you think that the virus cost will only affect the UK?

sorry by "asset", I meant low debt level is good.

 

Covid-19 didn't affect the UK only, but until now, the management of the pandemic by BJ (and DC) was probably not the best in the world.

 

And now there are both the GDP going down and governement spending going up so the good debt/GDP ratio that used to be a considerable UK "advantage"  (not saying asset) is no more

 

 

The country rating does not only list brexit and covid, but also erosion of UK's fiscal strength and the weakening in the UK's institutions and governance

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-the-UKs-ratings-to-Aa3-outlook-stable--PR_434172

 

 

To me (and beyond fishing, which is very symbolic indeed), this is where the real issues are. 

 

 

Likewise, event the most comprehensive Brexit deal would not cover Services, which are 80% of the UK economy and another decisive "strong suit" (not saying asset again ???? ) of the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/16/uk-credit-rating-downgraded-by-moodys-amid-growth-concerns

 

 

UK credit rating downgraded by Moody's amid growth concerns
Ratings agency cites weakening economy, Brexit woes and coronavirus shocks

Phillip Inman
@phillipinman
Fri 16 Oct 2020 23.34 BST

 

Credit ratings agency Moody’s has downgraded Britain’s credit status, citing a decline in economic strength in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and continued Brexit uncertainty.

With the government struggling to contain a second wave and ministers under pressure to sanction extra spending to protect businesses and jobs, Moody’s lowered the UK’s sovereign debt rating by one notch to Aa3 from Aa2.

59 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

Fish know mostly no borders and this is going to turn a (partial) win-win sustainable policy into a lose-lose. 

"Lose-lose" pretty well sums up the whole Brexit fiasco. It seems that each time someone points out how a course of action will adversely affect the UK/EU, someone from the opposing faction justifies it by saying "Ah, but it'll be just as bad for the EU/UK".

5 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

"Lose-lose" pretty well sums up the whole Brexit fiasco. It seems that each time someone points out how a course of action will adversely affect the UK/EU, someone from the opposing faction justifies it by saying "Ah, but it'll be just as bad for the EU/UK".

Only the E.U. did not started Brexit .... and has to protect their interests not give away to a now "third country " and so only negational  …. just like with any other country not in the bloc 

1 hour ago, luckyluke said:

I try to understand this concept, but it doesn't really work for me.

I mean I am not aware of being ruled in any  way by the E.U..

I am 72, and since the beginning Belgium is part of the E.U., in all these years, except the implementation of the Euro ( which was rather struggling ) I don't know of anything being of any importance.

I know it is there, as I know we have a king.

I mean Belgium is a kingdom, but here also this never had any influence on my daily life.  

Agreed, this whole 'sovereignty' concept was blown out of all proportion. On previous threads I posed the question "When did not having absolute sovereignty last affect your life?". Not surprisingly I received no replies. We see the same thing here with Prayut and his obsession with 'national security', without him ever defining what is being compromised to justify his actions.

48 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

sorry by "asset", I meant low debt level is good.

 

Covid-19 didn't affect the UK only, but until now, the management of the pandemic by BJ (and DC) was probably not the best in the world.

 

And now there are both the GDP going down and governement spending going up so the good debt/GDP ratio that used to be a considerable UK "advantage"  (not saying asset) is no more

 

 

The country rating does not only list brexit and covid, but also erosion of UK's fiscal strength and the weakening in the UK's institutions and governance

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-the-UKs-ratings-to-Aa3-outlook-stable--PR_434172

 

 

To me (and beyond fishing, which is very symbolic indeed), this is where the real issues are. 

 

 

Likewise, event the most comprehensive Brexit deal would not cover Services, which are 80% of the UK economy and another decisive "strong suit" (not saying asset again ???? ) of the UK

A lot of add-ons there. How is the French debt doing then?

2 hours ago, Hi from France said:

 

Anyway this might be the last time big English scallopers boat have access the the Bay of Seine while samller french boats are barred from fishing on conservation grounds.

 

They are maybe trying to reap as much a they can before it's over?

Now there's an opinion that stems from the voice of experience... We're not all like the French.

10 hours ago, vogie said:

The EU cannot possibly treat the UK fairly or else other nations might get ideas above their status and decide to leave and that wouldn't do at all now would it.

Yep, that's the crux of it. The EU are desperate not to let the other member states know that they would be better off out. They're acting like an abusive husband. 

 

What the EU could've / should've done was to say; the UK have contributed hugely to the EU over decades. For that reason we will allow them a fair deal. That deal would not be available to exiting member states who have not contributed the same. 

That would stop all the sponge states from leaving, and we all know France and Germany won't leave because they pull all the strings. It could've been made so much easier if the EU had taken that approach.  

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

You’ve answered your own question. Your interests or feelings are not our concern anymore. Your “upcoming status as an independent country” is  not our business. 

 

Is that why you've spent almost 5 years trying to reverse or dilute the Brexit decision.

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

Back on topic : in his video address Johnson repeatedly demanded a Canada - style deal.

 

Actually, you know this type of deal we signed with Canada, it's called CETA

 

.. But it turns out the Johnson government choose not to negotiate a Ceta-type deal 

 

Poor deluded soul....

46 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Yep, that's the crux of it. The EU are desperate not to let the other member states know that they would be better off out. They're acting like an abusive husband. 

 

What the EU could've / should've done was to say; the UK have contributed hugely to the EU over decades. For that reason we will allow them a fair deal. That deal would not be available to exiting member states who have not contributed the same. 

That would stop all the sponge states from leaving, and we all know France and Germany won't leave because they pull all the strings. It could've been made so much easier if the EU had taken that approach.  

Sorry, I take issue with the statement - "allow them a fair deal".  We're not stood in line with a begging bowl! It's a two way street my friend. We don't want any special deals from EU, a simple Canada style deal will do, not contingent on any good will, or preferential treatment of a previous member state. No cherries, no cake, just a simple straight forward, unencumbered, mutually beneficial deal will do.

But the EU are acting like a bunch of snubbed brats, and have thrown their dolly out of the pram, insisting on punishing the UK, to set an example to others considering the same action.

I'm no economic expert, nor am I vindictive, but I sincerely hope it backfires on the EU to teach them a lesson. Som nam nah.

2 hours ago, Hi from France said:

Back on topic : in his video address Johnson repeatedly demanded a Canada - style deal.

 

Actually, you know this type of deal we signed with Canada, it's called CETA

 

.. But it turns out the Johnson government choose not to negotiate a Ceta-type deal 

 

Are you suggesting the EU have offered us a Canada style FTA with no strings attached, i.e. same terms as Canada got? If that's the case I'm sure Barmier and co would be shouting that from the rooftops right now. I think you have been hoodwinked mon ami. 

5 minutes ago, Tofer said:

Sorry, I take issue with the statement - "allow them a fair deal".  We're not stood in line with a begging bowl! It's a two way street my friend. We don't want any special deals from EU, a simple Canada style deal will do, not contingent on any good will, or preferential treatment of a previous member state. No cherries, no cake, just a simple straight forward, unencumbered, mutually beneficial deal will do.

But the EU are acting like a bunch of snubbed brats, and have thrown their dolly out of the pram, insisting on punishing the UK, to set an example to others considering the same action.

I'm no economic expert, nor am I vindictive, but I sincerely hope it backfires on the EU to teach them a lesson. Som nam nah.

"allow them a fair deal" is just the way the EU would have to pitch it to their subjects. In reality they endangering a standard and mutually beneficial trade deal with their demands for judicial oversight, access to fishing waters etc. 

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Are you suggesting the EU have offered us a Canada style FTA with no strings attached, i.e. same terms as Canada got? If that's the case I'm sure Barmier and co would be shouting that from the rooftops right now. I think you have been hoodwinked mon ami. 

it's more complicated than that : what I read here

Quote

What is a Canada-style trade deal?

The EU has a trade deal with Canada called the comprehensive economic and trade agreement (Ceta). It is the type of arrangement that Michel Barnier said four years ago would be possible at the start of the Brexit talks if the UK wished to leave the single market and customs union.

 

There would be checks on imports and exports and a great deal more red tape for businesses as the UK would be outside the EU rule book. But such a deal does involve reducing tariffs, or taxes, on imports and quotas – the amount of a product that can be exported without extra charges.

 

What the UK and EU have been attempting to negotiate is something more than that enjoyed by Canada, however. Both sides say they want a “zero tariff, zero quota” agreement by the end of the year.

 

The Ceta deal gets close to doing that – 98% of products are tariff-free, but they do remain on poultry, meat and eggs, for example. Quotas also remain on some goods.

 

“If they actually wanted a Canada-style deal they should have extended the transition period and then we could have gone through all the products and put tariffs and quotas in place in return for lower demands on maintaining EU standards,” said one exasperated EU official.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/16/boris-johnson-australia-style-trading-system-brexit-uk

 

.... is that if the UK wanted a Canada-style deal, it should simply have planned to do so, e.g. the English imposing a very tight schedule simply does not give enough time. The very limited schedule an refusal to extend the negociation can only allow an "all or nothing / no quota" deal.

 

Brexit was a British demand (more English in fact, since Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted to remain), and it is the the brits above all, who are setting the timetable.

 

The CETA negociations started in 2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

A lot of add-ons there. How is the French debt doing then?

not well either indeed, I do not really dare looking it up ...

 

now, what I'm simply stating is there is a very very big additional issue for the UK here. The national debt, that was previously quite well-managed (at a terrible cost for poverty in the country and the NHS in my opinion), has become another handicap.

 

now this is another matter, but about Covid, the UE has set up a €750bn (£682bn) pandemic recovery fund. Given that the UK is the hardest-hit economy in Europe after Spain (please correct me if needed), it seems to me that being a member the UE now would really a huge help for a hard-hit country, and the UK missed that.

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Yep, that's the crux of it. The EU are desperate not to let the other member states know that they would be better off out. They're acting like an abusive husband. 

And what evidence is there to suggest that any other member state would be better off out of the EU. (Please don't post a table of contributions. It's pretty obvious that some states will be net contributors).

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

 

What the EU could've / should've done was to say; the UK have contributed hugely to the EU over decades. For that reason we will allow them a fair deal. That deal would not be available to exiting member states who have not contributed the same. 

That would stop all the sponge states from leaving, and we all know France and Germany won't leave because they pull all the strings. It could've been made so much easier if the EU had taken that approach.  

The UK's past contributions to the EU budget are completely irrelevant when it comes to making a trade deal.

 

Why would a 'sponge' state leave? They are getting paid for being a member?

16 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

it's more complicated than that : what I read here

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/16/boris-johnson-australia-style-trading-system-brexit-uk

 

.... is that if the UK wanted a Canada-style deal, it should simply have planned to do so, e.g. the English imposing a very tight schedule simply does not give enough time. The very limited schedule an refusal to extend the negociation can only allow an "all or nothing / no quota" deal.

 

Brexit was a British demand (more English in fact, since Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted to remain), and it is the the brits above all, who are setting the timetable.

 

The CETA negociations started in 2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think at any point the EU have offered this with a reasonable timescale. If they did then they would be shouting about it now. It would be ideal ammunition for the blame game. 

13 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

not well either indeed, I do not really dare looking it up ...

 

now, what I'm simply stating is there is a very very big additional issue for the UK here. The national debt, that was previously quite well-managed (at a terrible cost for poverty in the country and the NHS in my opinion), has become another handicap.

 

now this is another matter, but about Covid, the UE has set up a €750bn (£682bn) pandemic recovery fund. Given that the UK is the hardest-hit economy in Europe after Spain (please correct me if needed), it seems to me that being a member the UE now would really a huge help for a hard-hit country, and the UK missed that.

Think not. The fund set up by the thrifty EU states to help out especially italy,Spain etc,is a poisoned chalice,untouched by any of the desperate ones   Too many poisoness conditions attached to the offerings, will see Italy leave the EU in couple of years

 

Troika     thats the word was looking for      Leave Italy etc  just likened to Greece

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

And what evidence is there to suggest that any other member state would be better off out of the EU. (Please don't post a table of contributions. It's pretty obvious that some states will be net contributors).

The UK's past contributions to the EU budget are completely irrelevant when it comes to making a trade deal.

 

Why would a 'sponge' state leave? They are getting paid for being a member?

I said it's what the EU are afraid of, I didn't say other states would be better off. 

I agree sponge states would not leave. And the EU could have made doubly sure of that by making it clear they wouldn't get a good deal. 

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You are exposing your myopic views again.

 

Australia, South Africa and South America have fantastic grapes and I suspect British consumers will be buying them ahead of EU sour grapes until they give us a fair and mutually beneficial FTA. 

Haven't bought a bottle of French wine in years, overpriced and overrated.

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Tofer said:

Sorry, I take issue with the statement - "allow them a fair deal".  We're not stood in line with a begging bowl! It's a two way street my friend. We don't want any special deals from EU, a simple Canada style deal will do, not contingent on any good will, or preferential treatment of a previous member state. No cherries, no cake, just a simple straight forward, unencumbered, mutually beneficial deal will do.

You and Johnson might think a Canada style deal 'mutually beneficial', but the UK government has obviously failed to convince the EU that is the case and that's what matters .

43 minutes ago, Tofer said:

But the EU are acting like a bunch of snubbed brats, and have thrown their dolly out of the pram, insisting on punishing the UK, to set an example to others considering the same action.

Absolute tosh. Opinion without any evidence to support it.

43 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I'm no economic expert, nor am I vindictive, but I sincerely hope it backfires on the EU to teach them a lesson. Som nam nah.

Sounds vindictive to me.

For every yin, there's a yang; for every high, a low. Yesterday we were ecstatic about the fantastic trade deal with Cote D'Ivoire, today comes the crushing blow that that same Brexit that brought us such great opportunities as closer ties to Timor Leste, has forced William Shatner to cease trading with the UK. Brexit is, sadly, no Starship Enterprise for him. 

8 minutes ago, sungod said:

 

 

10 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I said it's what the EU are afraid of, I didn't say other states would be better off. 

I agree sponge states would not leave. And the EU could have made doubly sure of that by making it clear they wouldn't get a good deal. 

I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

For every yin, there's a yang; for every high, a low. Yesterday we were ecstatic about the fantastic trade deal with Cote D'Ivoire, today comes the crushing blow that that same Brexit that brought us such great opportunities as closer ties to Timor Leste, has forced William Shatner to cease trading with the UK. Brexit is, sadly, no Starship Enterprise for him. 

Not very bold of him!

32 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think at any point the EU have offered this with a reasonable timescale. If they did then they would be shouting about it now. It would be ideal ammunition for the blame game. 

From what I know the UE strongly wanted a longer negociation, and proposed an extension, and the brits refused.

 

as for the blame game, we are in presence of a populist governement there is and will continue to be a lot of excessive language (juste read above : "abusive husband", "rape", "the UE is desperate"), these posts seems simply not to be british.

 

A big problem with the negociations is the feeling we have to negociate with people who are completely anthetical to the very clever "stiff upper lip" brits.

 

there is a very good interview by an expert, close to the UE side

 

orginal

Quote

Des erreurs stratégiques ont-elles été commises par l’Union européenne ou le Royaume-Uni depuis le début des tractations?

Je ne reviens pas sur les erreurs du Royaume-Uni: engager une négociation sans avoir clarifié en amont les objectifs à atteindre par-delà le slogan du "Brexit", et croire que les 27 Etats-membres se diviseraient.

Du côté de l’Union européenne, il y a eu une erreur d’appréciation: croire retrouver le négociateur britannique typique, c’est-à-dire -je reprends le portrait tracé en 1939 par un grand diplomate anglais, Sir Harold Nicholson- pragmatique, ayant les intérêts de son pays pour seule boussole, ne cherchant pas à impressionner quiconque, bien informé, imperturbable en temps de crise. Au contraire, ils ont vu défiler des négociateurs pour la plupart dépassés par la technicité du sujet, n’ayant pas de mandat politique clair, obnubilés par leur opinion publique, alignant les slogans tonitruants pour, finalement, revenir sur la parole donnée.

 

translation

Quote

Have strategic errors been made by the European Union or the United Kingdom since the negotiations began?

 

I will not go back over the mistakes of the United Kingdom: initiating negotiations without having clarified in advance the objectives to be achieved beyond the slogan of "Brexit", and believing that the 27 member states would be divided.

 

On the side of the European Union, there was an error of assessment: believing to find the typical British negotiator, that is to say - I am using the portrait drawn in 1939 by a great English diplomat, Sir Harold Nicholson - pragmatic, having the interests of his country as his only compass, not trying to impress anyone, well informed, unfazed in times of crisis.

 

On the contrary, they saw negotiators for the most part overwhelmed by the technicality of the subject, lacking a clear political mandate, obsessed with their public opinion, lining up thunderous slogans and, finally, going back on their word.

 

the interview give a very good "inside look" at what is happening, and I believe you can simply left click/translate to english

https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/brexit-l-union-europeenne-est-une-machine-a-negocier_AN-202010080026.html