Theresa May says 95% of Brexit deal is done

  • Hello Guest, You'll need to login or signup to be able to post on here.

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
So having spent the 4 years since the referendum using Ireland as their key battleground to protect the single market and insisting on measures to ensure no hard border, the EU enacts Brexit Article 16 - the consequence of which is a hard border across Ireland !! You could not make it up !!!! OK so they have now backed down, but if Ireland ever needed proof that they were just used during the Brexit negotiations, this latest spat has proved it. The EU has shown that when push comes to pull, Ireland is just an EU make weight and EU self preservation comes above everything else and the "project" is more important than the well being of the individual nations. For the life of me, I cannot understand how people can be so blinkered and, frankly, in awe, of an organisation that really needs to be taken apart.

This calamitous handling by the EU of their whole vaccine programme is nothing short of scandalous. Deaths across Europe could have been avoided and it would bring any normal national government down and out of office - but that cannot be done to the EU. So another example of where democracy doesn't apply in the EU. It carries on impervious to the consequences of its actions.

As for the UK's relationship with the EU, we now have a first class example of how the EU will react should this noble island get its mojo back and start outperforming the EU. Reports are already surfacing that the City is benefitting from being outside of the EU and its influence is growing not receding and trade deals seem to be falling into place. Local companies are already moving away from dealing with the EU and turning their attention to alternative markets.

So the upshot is whilst the doomsayers were warning that January would be a disaster, the opposite appears to be true with satisfaction with Brexit increasing all the time.
 

Andy

Too much time on my hands
Jul 28, 2013
2,729
1,960
123
26
Ursula von see Leyen is having an absolute shambles. It shouldn’t be a surprise, her reign as German Defence Minister was utterly shambolic too.

The EU is a safe haven for all those who are inept.
 

Phil Bradley

Legend
Aug 1, 2013
389
156
53
Holmes Chapel

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
Maybe slightly off thread - but the thought occurred that the SNP have spent the last 4 years telling us how Scotland has been dragged out of the EU against its will. Now that we are out and the position is nowhere near as bad as the naysayers would have had us believe and given the current fiasco in the EU, would Scotland vote the same way again given the choice?

The assumption by the SNP is that Scotland would automatically return to the EU if it became independent. But is this true? Is this what Scots still want? Would there be another EU in/out vote following any independence vote (should that happen)?

A vote to leave the UK but then a no vote in an EU referendum would certainly put wee Krankie in a bit of hole.
 

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
I see a lot of faux outrage emerging here after Boris the buffoon has already threatened invoking article 16 himself.

Sorry but that's a weak defence of the EU. Boris has to say that if the conditions exist that allow Article 16 to be triggered, he would use it. Otherwise it's a bit like Jeremy Corbyn having the nuclear keys.

The EU announced they were going to trigger Article 16 without even consulting Ireland (Eire) and without the prerequisite conditions existing. It is completely outside the scope of what it is intended for.
 

Alan M

Administrator
Forum Staff
Jun 24, 2013
3,360
2,287
123
Summing up from my point of view ...

AZ made a mess of drawing up their contracts, clearly underestimating the teething problems they'd have with manufacture. By the time they had the teething problems with their UK facilities (causing them to have to use their EU facilities to supply the UK in December) they'd already signed their EU contract - so they probably in secret saw this coming this month. Whether they could have done anything to address it before it all blew up, possibly not, given the process of growing/producing the vaccines.

EU were slow to sign contracts, because they spent too long haggling over prices, but individual states signed up to central procurement & distribution - apart from Hungary, who've opted for Russian and now Chinese vaccines instead. France Germany Italy actually wanted to go the independent route but were persuaded in the interests of the poorer states within the EU to agree to join the joint centralised programme. They may have some tinge of regret that they decided to support this route, but in the end there is little point in having everyone vaccinated in a few EU countries and the rest all scrabbling around trying to source and pay for vaccines. It's a global pandemic and requires a global cooperative response, not any form of vaccine nationalism. And someone needs to remember the need to vaccinate the rest of the world, sooner rather than later, to try to prevent yet more variants emerging.

A contract is a contract, regardless of whether one was signed before the other. One contract does not have legal precedence over another where there is a conflict between the two. That works both ways too (so the UK govt would be on equally shaky ground to demand that AZ only supplied UK). Ultimately this was AZ overpromising and underdelivering. (Incidentally, re a comment somewhere above, remember they are part Swedish, so have a foot in the EU camp). This then becomes a commercial contractual dispute between AZ & EU, and the UK govt could have kept out of it until the EU Commission's stupid suggestion that they could use Art 16 of the NI Protocol. Fortunately everyone else across the whole of Europe recognised the stupidity of that suggestion. (Again, as pointed out above, Johnson has not been slow to threaten the same measure, and indeed there was the little matter of the Single Market Bill).

At least now with more vaccine options coming on stream we might avoid such unseemly disputes in the future.
 

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
Summing up from my point of view ...

AZ made a mess of drawing up their contracts, clearly underestimating the teething problems they'd have with manufacture. By the time they had the teething problems with their UK facilities (causing them to have to use their EU facilities to supply the UK in December) they'd already signed their EU contract - so they probably in secret saw this coming this month. Whether they could have done anything to address it before it all blew up, possibly not, given the process of growing/producing the vaccines.

EU were slow to sign contracts, because they spent too long haggling over prices, but individual states signed up to central procurement & distribution - apart from Hungary, who've opted for Russian and now Chinese vaccines instead. France Germany Italy actually wanted to go the independent route but were persuaded in the interests of the poorer states within the EU to agree to join the joint centralised programme. They may have some tinge of regret that they decided to support this route, but in the end there is little point in having everyone vaccinated in a few EU countries and the rest all scrabbling around trying to source and pay for vaccines. It's a global pandemic and requires a global cooperative response, not any form of vaccine nationalism. And someone needs to remember the need to vaccinate the rest of the world, sooner rather than later, to try to prevent yet more variants emerging.

A contract is a contract, regardless of whether one was signed before the other. One contract does not have legal precedence over another where there is a conflict between the two. That works both ways too (so the UK govt would be on equally shaky ground to demand that AZ only supplied UK). Ultimately this was AZ overpromising and underdelivering. (Incidentally, re a comment somewhere above, remember they are part Swedish, so have a foot in the EU camp). This then becomes a commercial contractual dispute between AZ & EU, and the UK govt could have kept out of it until the EU Commission's stupid suggestion that they could use Art 16 of the NI Protocol. Fortunately everyone else across the whole of Europe recognised the stupidity of that suggestion. (Again, as pointed out above, Johnson has not been slow to threaten the same measure, and indeed there was the little matter of the Single Market Bill).

At least now with more vaccine options coming on stream we might avoid such unseemly disputes in the future.
Couple of comments re the above

AZ didn't make a mess of their contracts. As with all suppliers they leave themselves a "get out of jail card" with the "best endeavours" or force majeure clauses. It was up to the EU to put contingency measures in place, which they palpably failed to do. Given that these contracts are being drawn up and signed when the development was still in progress and production volumes were always estimated, there were always going to be risks associated with this process. AZ made sure they were covered and the EU didn't. You mention the part played by the UK government - but we don't know what's in the AZ/UK contract and what conditions were included given the UK's considerable development funding of both AZ and Oxford University. I think that the UK government was quite happy for AZ and EU to sort this out between themselves until the EU made it an international dispute with the intention to impose Article 16. It was a completely over the top, panic response from an EU team out of their depth. References to Boris enacting Article 16 and the single markets bill are completely erroneous. The SM bill was a deliberate act in response to the EU threat not to give the UK a free trade agreement as promised by Tusk and Johnson admitted he would use the Article if the conditions dictated so. To say no would be like having the nuclear keys, but not using them at the crunch.

At the heart of this is the EU's arrogance. They think because they are "the 27" that everyone will bow down to them and treat them as demi gods. Pharma companies like AZ can look after themselves and have the financial and intellectual muscle to take on the EU, particularly where its the EU that need this vaccine. AZ will be able to sell however much they can make, irrespective of the EU's requirements. The EU have gone down completely the wrong path in this dispute. Where they are today - going into a meeting with the Pharma companies to see what can be done, should have been the EU's first step, not the last. Sheer arrogance and incompetence by the EU

I agree with your last sentence, however I think there will be more to come (not necessarily with the EU) The WHO want us to stop our vaccination programme after the most vulnerable are vaccinated. Whilst I can see the logic to try and save more lives, politically it would not wash in the UK. Time will tell.
 

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
Moody's agree with you Knutsfordian, there is no economic case for Brexit.

But you wouldn't really expect Moodys to say anything different than they said during the referendum campaign and their negative view is already built into their ratings and has been for quite some time. So from that perspective there isn't anything here that they haven't said before or any ongoing impact from Moodys' ratings.

I have said a number of times that the decision to leave the EU was not based purely on economic factors. However, I think most people now recognise that the downbeat assessment by the Remain campaign of Britain's future prosperity was quite a way off the mark of what is really happening. If the Trans Pacific Agreement comes to fruition then the impact of any EU losses will be negligible.
 

Phil Bradley

Legend
Aug 1, 2013
389
156
53
Holmes Chapel
But you wouldn't really expect Moodys to say anything different than they said during the referendum campaign and their negative view is already built into their ratings and has been for quite some time. So from that perspective there isn't anything here that they haven't said before or any ongoing impact from Moodys' ratings.

I have said a number of times that the decision to leave the EU was not based purely on economic factors. However, I think most people now recognise that the downbeat assessment by the Remain campaign of Britain's future prosperity was quite a way off the mark of what is really happening. If the Trans Pacific Agreement comes to fruition then the impact of any EU losses will be negligible.
off the mark? and as for the trans Pacific agreement making EU losses negligible then you are deluded.
 

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
off the mark? and as for the trans Pacific agreement making EU losses negligible then you are deluded.
well time will tell but no one has been able to put a value on what being in the EU was worth and most of the time its a desperate attempt to show what we are losing, which has turned out to be not a lot. Many Remainers are now seeing the upside of Brexit and the mood music is definitely more pro Brexit these days. So I have to say I am quite happy with where we are and not missing Brussels one bit !

If we join the Trans Pacific Agreement that's also likely to be the quickest route to an FTA with the USA. If that happens it may be you who looks very deluded. The EU is going backwards, lacks insight, is too focussed on political union, it;s not what most countries want or need and they will grow way beyond the projected growth for the EU.

You need to get those blinkers off, if the EU was a stock the brokers would be saying sell, sell, sell at any price you can get
 
Last edited:

James Wood

I Live Here
Jun 1, 2017
705
376
73
On EMA ... this country lost the specialists/jobs when it relocated from the UK last year and has now to set up and staff its own parallel organisation, along with all the other parallel organisations with equally specialist staff that the UK now has to replicate. Apart from the huge expense of starting up such an organisation from scratch, and the delays incurred while international joint recognition is agreed, we simply do not have the trained specialists in all these various fields used to running such an agency. That applies whether it's an equivalent to EMA, ECDC, Galileo, Erasmus, Horizon, Copernicus, or any of the other programmes where we've relied on internaional cooperation until now (as James intimates above re EAW etc). It's customs agents all over again.

Still no EU lorries passing, by the way.
And more Brexit dividends!

Our hugely successful live music sector now followed by our equivalently successful fashion industry!


But never mind, at least we’ve got happy rotting fish 🐠 and seafood 🦞!
 

James Wood

I Live Here
Jun 1, 2017
705
376
73
Interesting to read that the G7 is set to become the D10, with India, Australia and South Korea being added to the group, proposed by the UK and supported by the US

Given the current European weighting and also the inclusion of the EU, the new countries would provide a wider balance and reduce EU influence. It also paves the way for the UK to join the Asian alliance (to keep China in check) and the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement.

So looks like the UK is already looking to widen it's own horizons beyond Europe.
Britain - keep China in check??
That horse has long since bolted through the open stable door.
Have you not seen the events in HK over the last year or more?
 

Alan M

Administrator
Forum Staff
Jun 24, 2013
3,360
2,287
123
I didn't mention "the part played by the UK govt" - largely because in my view they had no part to play until they had to join everyone else in objecting to the Commission's ill-considered proposed move. As I thought I had made clear, it eas a commercial contractual dispute between EU and AZ.

I had to smile at the concept that anyone thinking the Trans-Pacific Partnership could replace EU trade losses (given the losses are focused mainly on SMEs with well developed trading links with near neighbours and little prospect of breaking into a market on the other side of the world). That smile turned into a chuckle when I then read that joining an Asian alliance (or should that be Eurasian? very Orwellian) would mean the UK could somehow keep China in check.
 

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
I didn't mention "the part played by the UK govt" - largely because in my view they had no part to play until they had to join everyone else in objecting to the Commission's ill-considered proposed move. As I thought I had made clear, it eas a commercial contractual dispute between EU and AZ.

I had to smile at the concept that anyone thinking the Trans-Pacific Partnership could replace EU trade losses (given the losses are focused mainly on SMEs with well developed trading links with near neighbours and little prospect of breaking into a market on the other side of the world). That smile turned into a chuckle when I then read that joining an Asian alliance (or should that be Eurasian? very Orwellian) would mean the UK could somehow keep China in check.

My comment in relation to the UK govt was regarding your assertion that the UK contracts could be treated the same as the EU contract. That's not necessarily true because you don't know what's in the UK/AZ contract

Joining the Asian pact will be at the request of the USA. As is ever the case there is a deal to be done here in relation to trade matters. Biden doesn't want to undermine the EU by giving the UK a 1-2-1 trade agreement, but by taking America back into the TTP, the UK gets the trade agreement that it seeks with the USA, without the USA upsetting the EU. The whole package of trade agreements then puts the UK in a different position when it negotiates again with the EU. I expect dwindling trade with the EU to become the norm, with a vast reduction in EU imports over time driven by EU tariffs in retaliation for the UK taking back the rest of its fishing rights and generally becoming more competitive The EU is a declining force in trade and the UK has to look to new markets.

You can chuckle and laugh all you like at the new trade deals and the benefits they will bring, but there is nothing so certain that the EU has passed its peak and that other countries around the world are creating new markets and systems that work around the EU, without all the bureaucracy and political shenanigans that the EU entails.
 

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
And more Brexit dividends!

Our hugely successful live music sector now followed by our equivalently successful fashion industry!


But never mind, at least we’ve got happy rotting fish 🐠 and seafood 🦞!
Negotiations are already underway to create a means for music and fashion to have access to the EU and UK without implementing complete freedom of movement
 

James Wood

I Live Here
Jun 1, 2017
705
376
73
Negotiations are already underway to create a means for music and fashion to have access to the EU and UK without implementing complete freedom of movement
But we were promised Unicorns dancing on sunlit uplands, not more rounds of negotiations and endless paperwork.
#Brexitreality
 

Knutsfordian

Too much time on my hands
Dec 18, 2014
1,558
873
123
65
But we were promised Unicorns dancing on sunlit uplands, not more rounds of negotiations and endless paperwork.
#Brexitreality
But we are dealing with the EU here. It was always going to be a fraught negotiation. I honestly always believed there wouldn't be a deal at all, so personally I am not surprised at all.

Interesting to see that Boris has changed his mind about Lord Frost being his security advisor and has appointed him to face off to Barnier with future EU discussions. I think the EU thought it was a masterstroke keeping Barnier, but I bet he won't be chuffed having to face up to Lord Frost again, who I think has the measure of Barnier