A Levels, Covid, Brexit. Worst Government Ever?

[Devils_Advocate]

You forgot this bit at the end of that article.

The article is paywalled so Ive had to rely on others people's summary and discussions about the detail. If you have access to it and its not too long i'd appreciate you copy and pasting it so I can read the full thing myself

[aggi]

The UK’s new trade deal with Japan commits it to tougher restrictions on state aid than the ones it is currently offering the EU in the Brexit talks, potentially undermining its negotiating position with Brussels.

In the bilateral UK-Japan agreement announced in principle on Friday, London and Tokyo have agreed to replicate the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year. That agreement prohibits the governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.

By contrast, the UK has repeatedly told the European Union that it must have total freedom over state aid after the end of the Brexit transition period with complete autonomy over future subsidy decisions, subject to WTO rules.


The so-called level-playing-field issues have become the main sticking point in the EU-UK negotiations, with London resisting Brussels’s demands for it to remain within the tough EU state aid regime.

Britain’s proposal to the EU would merely require each side to notify the other of subsidies rather than restricting them. Its offer replicates the EU’s commitments in earlier bilateral trade deals, such as the one with Canada that went into force in 2017.

A government spokesman said “The UK offer to the EU is based on the arrangements agreed between Canada and the EU.

The idea that we’ve given too much away is rubbish as far as I’m concerned

Ally of Liz Truss
“The UK-Japan agreement contains similar commitments, including on transparency about subsidies awarded and consultations over any concerns about those subsidies which may affect the other party

However, the contradiction between the two positions has created consternation within the UK government.

A person familiar with internal Whitehall deliberations said that the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost had raised concerns that Liz Truss, international trade secretary, had given more away to Japan on level playing field issues than was being offered to Brussels.

One ally of Ms Truss said that the state aid elements of the Japan deal were “just a standard clause in any free trade agreement” rather than a more generous concession. “The idea that we’ve given too much away is rubbish as far as I’m concerned.”

Trade experts said it would be awkward for the UK to maintain contrasting positions in two sets of talks.

George Peretz, a barrister at the Monckton legal chambers in London, said: “The provisions on state aid in the EU-Japan FTA create some quite hard-edged commitments not to provide open-ended government support to companies.

“If the UK-Japan FTA replicates those provisions, the UK will need to legislate to ensure that British public bodies do not contravene them. That could well compromise the UK’s negotiating position with the EU, where it has not offered anything like that level of commitment.”

Recommended
UK-Japan trade deal shows need for EU pact
But some lawyers also stressed that the subsidy rules in the Japan bilateral deal were still weak compared with the detailed and invasive EU state aid regime.

James Webber, a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: “It’s a concession of sorts by the UK, but if this is where the negotiations end up, it will be much closer to the UK’s view of the world than the EU’s".

A government spokesperson said: “In all our trade negotiations, including with the EU and with Japan, we consistently make proposals which provide for open and fair competition, on the basis of high standards, in a way which is appropriate to a modern free trade agreement between sovereign and autonomous equals

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The article is paywalled so Ive had to rely on others people's summary and discussions about the detail. If you have access to it and its not too long i'd appreciate you copy and pasting it so I can read the full thing myself

The UK’s new trade deal with Japan commits it to tougher restrictions on state aid than the ones it is currently offering the EU in the Brexit talks, potentially undermining its negotiating position with Brussels.

In the bilateral UK-Japan agreement announced in principle on Friday, London and Tokyo have agreed to replicate the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year. That agreement prohibits the governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.

By contrast, the UK has repeatedly told the European Union that it must have total freedom over state aid after the end of the Brexit transition period with complete autonomy over future subsidy decisions, subject to WTO rules.


The so-called level-playing-field issues have become the main sticking point in the EU-UK negotiations, with London resisting Brussels’s demands for it to remain within the tough EU state aid regime.

Britain’s proposal to the EU would merely require each side to notify the other of subsidies rather than restricting them. Its offer replicates the EU’s commitments in earlier bilateral trade deals, such as the one with Canada that went into force in 2017.

A government spokesman said “The UK offer to the EU is based on the arrangements agreed between Canada and the EU.

The idea that we’ve given too much away is rubbish as far as I’m concerned

Ally of Liz Truss
“The UK-Japan agreement contains similar commitments, including on transparency about subsidies awarded and consultations over any concerns about those subsidies which may affect the other party

However, the contradiction between the two positions has created consternation within the UK government.

A person familiar with internal Whitehall deliberations said that the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost had raised concerns that Liz Truss, international trade secretary, had given more away to Japan on level playing field issues than was being offered to Brussels.

One ally of Ms Truss said that the state aid elements of the Japan deal were “just a standard clause in any free trade agreement” rather than a more generous concession. “The idea that we’ve given too much away is rubbish as far as I’m concerned.”

Trade experts said it would be awkward for the UK to maintain contrasting positions in two sets of talks.

George Peretz, a barrister at the Monckton legal chambers in London, said: “The provisions on state aid in the EU-Japan FTA create some quite hard-edged commitments not to provide open-ended government support to companies.

“If the UK-Japan FTA replicates those provisions, the UK will need to legislate to ensure that British public bodies do not contravene them. That could well compromise the UK’s negotiating position with the EU, where it has not offered anything like that level of commitment.”

Recommended
UK-Japan trade deal shows need for EU pact
But some lawyers also stressed that the subsidy rules in the Japan bilateral deal were still weak compared with the detailed and invasive EU state aid regime.

James Webber, a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: “It’s a concession of sorts by the UK, but if this is where the negotiations end up, it will be much closer to the UK’s view of the world than the EU’s".

A government spokesperson said: “In all our trade negotiations, including with the EU and with Japan, we consistently make proposals which provide for open and fair competition, on the basis of high standards, in a way which is appropriate to a modern free trade agreement between sovereign and autonomous equals.

[Devils_Advocate]

.....

aggi had already shared it but thanks

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It shows the gov can negotiate more than one trade deal at a time, something many people have said they could whilst others said they couldn't.

However they aren't all singing off the same hymn sheet depending on who you believe because that article shows both points.

[martin_p]

Ah, the UK is acting illegally now? Haha. Nice one Martin

So the government are lying when they admit what they are doing breaks international law?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

So the government are lying when they admit what they are doing breaks international law?

So would you rather the UK gov just left NI to their own devices and not deliver food as normal?
All because the EU might not stick us on a list because we won't tell them what our future food standards will be even though at present they're exactly the same as the EU requirements?
We've even said we will give the appropriate notification via the WTO and EU process if we decide to change...

We didn't agree to the WA just so we can sit there when the EU decides to push us into a corner

[martin_p]

You forgot this bit at the end of that article.

So what that’s saying is that we’ve given Japan more than we’re offering the EU but not as much as they want!

[Devils_Advocate]

So would you rather the UK gov just left NI to their own devices and not deliver food as normal?
All because the EU might not stick us on a list because we won't tell them what our future food standards will be even though at present they're exactly the same as the EU requirements?
We've even said we will give the appropriate notification via the WTO and EU process if we decide to change...

We didn't agree to the WA just so we can sit there when the EU decides to push us into a corner

I posted on here a couple of weeks ago about UK businesses lambasting the govt for missing the deadline on new food labeling rules and risking food shortages in N Ireland.

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit- ... ?r=US&IR=T

Maybe if the govt is going to pursue these negotiation strategies and refuse extensions it should take the necessary steps to prepare for all possible outcomes and concentrate on the well being of all UK citizens over their lovely ideology.

But nope lets put it all on the EU because they are not doing exactly what we want them to do

[martin_p]

So would you rather the UK gov just left NI to their own devices and not deliver food as normal?
All because the EU might not stick us on a list because we won't tell them what our future food standards will be even though at present they're exactly the same as the EU requirements?
We've even said we will give the appropriate notification via the WTO and EU process if we decide to change...

We didn't agree to the WA just so we can sit there when the EU decides to push us into a corner

Why has all this stuff about NI and not delivering food to them only been raised now? Is it something the EU have said they’ll do or is it another EU bogeyman conjured up to deflect attention from the government’s failure?

Re your last paragraph, why did the agree to the WA full stop if that’s what it allowed the EU to do?

[Damo]

Hope youre ok mate, youve been coming out with some strange sh*t this week

I'm just playing devils advocate pal

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Why has all this stuff about NI and not delivering food to them only been raised now? Is it something the EU have said they’ll do or is it another EU bogeyman conjured up to deflect attention from the government’s failure?

Re your last paragraph, why did the agree to the WA full stop if that’s what it allowed the EU to do?

The EU are threatening to not put us onto their list of approved countries, meaning it would be illegal for us to send food to N.Ireland.
That threat has been made before we make any changes to food standards and we've stated we would notify them of any and all changes through the proper channels.

[Damo]

So the government are lying when they admit what they are doing breaks international law?

Yes I'd imagine they are martin

[Damo]

Why has all this stuff about NI and not delivering food to them only been raised now? Is it something the EU have said they’ll do or is it another EU bogeyman conjured up to deflect attention from the government’s failure?

Re your last paragraph, why did the agree to the WA full stop if that’s what it allowed the EU to do?

I think we believed they would act in good faith Martin.
Strange you lot are not up in arms about the EU behaving in such a way
Anyone would think you have some kind of agenda

[Damo]

So are you claiming that the House of Representatives don't have to vote on any deal that Trump may or may not negotiate with the UK, (that's assuming he's in power to do so)?

Do you want to read what I wrote again and see if you can translate my words into something more plausible?

[martin_p]

I think we believed they would act in good faith Martin.
Strange you lot are not up in arms about the EU behaving in such a way
Anyone would think you have some kind of agenda

If you can tell me why they aren’t acting in good faith it’d be useful. The political declaration talks about a level playing field and prevention of distortion of trade and substantial commitments to ensure this. The U.K. position doesn’t come close to any such commitment.

The EU are negotiating on what was in the PD, we seem to be ignoring it (at least in this case it’s not legally binding).

So where’s the EU bad faith?

[martin_p]

Yes I'd imagine they are martin

You haven’t got a clue what your argument is have you?

[Damo]

If you can tell me why they aren’t acting in good faith it’d be useful. The political declaration talks about a level playing field and prevention of distortion of trade and substantial commitments to ensure this. The U.K. position doesn’t come close to any such commitment.

The EU are negotiating on what was in the PD, we seem to be ignoring it (at least in this case it’s not legally binding).

So where’s the EU bad faith?

I think Syd has already explained above how the EU is using this technicality to stop us exporting food to Northern Ireland. An attempt to blackmail us into accepting their derisory terms and quoting the good Friday agreement.
The only people who seem upset by the the governments action to negate this are the EU negotiators and the extremist remainers who would rather us get a terrible deal than succeed as a nation ongoing. People like you.

You haven’t got a clue what your argument is have you?

I'm know what my argument is pal.
Politicians will, and always have lied through their teeth.
If it results in us getting rid of the EU and making them negotiate with us on reasonable terms in the future, then I couldn't care less

[AndrewJB]

I think Syd has already explained above how the EU is using this technicality to stop us exporting food to Northern Ireland. An attempt to blackmail us into accepting their derisory terms and quoting the good Friday agreement.
The only people who seem upset by the the governments action to negate this are the EU negotiators and the extremist remainers who would rather us get a terrible deal than succeed as a nation ongoing. People like you.


I'm know what my argument is pal.
Politicians will, and always have lied through their teeth.
If it results in us getting rid of the EU and making them negotiate with us on reasonable terms in the future, then I couldn't care less

It’s more than “extremist remainers” who are upset at the government’s actions. Quite a few backbench Tories (including brexiters) aren’t happy. It’s Johnson’s deal, and he forced his MPs to back it last year. Now he’s trying to force them into saying it’s a bad deal. He’s got himself to blame for signing it, and lied to the country about his “oven ready deal” too. How you and others continue to defend him would be hilarious if the country’s future weren’t at stake.

[martin_p]

I think Syd has already explained above how the EU is using this technicality to stop us exporting food to Northern Ireland. An attempt to blackmail us into accepting their derisory terms and quoting the good Friday agreement.
The only people who seem upset by the the governments action to negate this are the EU negotiators and the extremist remainers who would rather us get a terrible deal than succeed as a nation ongoing. People like you.


I'm know what my argument is pal.
Politicians will, and always have lied through their teeth.
If it results in us getting rid of the EU and making them negotiate with us on reasonable terms in the future, then I couldn't care less

Yeah, ******* them off and trying to re-write things we’ve already agreed is exactly the way to get them to negotiate in a reasonable way.

Whether you agree with Brexit or not surely everyone must be hoping for an amicable divorce. The way we’re going we’ll be on the worst diplomatic terms with parts of Europe since WWII.

It’s hilarious that you paint the ‘extremist remainers’ as the ones who want us to get a terrible deal while the ‘extremist Brexiteers’ are the ones egging on the government to behave disgracefully. Do you really not see that all this alpha male type posturing isn’t the way to get a good deal with any prospective partner with an IQ over 100.

[Spijed]

I think Syd has already explained above how the EU is using this technicality to stop us exporting food to Northern Ireland. An attempt to blackmail us into accepting their derisory terms and quoting the good Friday agreement.
The only people who seem upset by the the governments action to negate this are the EU negotiators and the extremist remainers who would rather us get a terrible deal than succeed as a nation ongoing. People like you.


I'm know what my argument is pal.
Politicians will, and always have lied through their teeth.
If it results in us getting rid of the EU and making them negotiate with us on reasonable terms in the future, then I couldn't care less

So you really think the EU could potentially stop the rest of the UK exporting food to Ireland, thus the potential to create food shortages?

You do realise that's illegal don't you?

Obviously not.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

So you really think the EU could potentially stop the rest of the UK exporting food to Ireland, thus the potential to create food shortages?

You do realise that's illegal don't you?

Obviously not.

It isn't illegal under the terms of the EU regulations and the WA.
N. Ireland is following certain EU regs and if GB isn't listed as a third country then legally we can't ship to Ireland.

[Damo]

Yeah, ******* them off and trying to re-write things we’ve already agreed is exactly the way to get them to negotiate in a reasonable way.

Whether you agree with Brexit or not surely everyone must be hoping for an amicable divorce. The way we’re going we’ll be on the worst diplomatic terms with parts of Europe since WWII.

It’s hilarious that you paint the ‘extremist remainers’ as the ones who want us to get a terrible deal while the ‘extremist Brexiteers’ are the ones egging on the government to behave disgracefully. Do you really not see that all this alpha male type posturing isn’t the way to get a good deal with any prospective partner with an IQ over 100.

Where was your outrage when the French government cancelled our order for face masks earlier this year?
Where were your tears when the Irish refused to open up their tote betting markets to UK companies?
Guessing all these decisions were made by people with an iq over 100
Again, its difficult to take people like you seriously when you are only 'outraged' at things, dependant on who is doing them

[Damo]

So you really think the EU could potentially stop the rest of the UK exporting food to Ireland, thus the potential to create food shortages?

You do realise that's illegal don't you?

Obviously not.

Yes, so where is your outrage?

[martin_p]

Where was your outrage when the French government cancelled our order for face masks earlier this year?
Where were your tears when the Irish refused to open up their tote betting markets to UK companies?
Guessing all these decisions were made by people with an iq over 100
Again, its difficult to take people like you seriously when you are only 'outraged' at things, dependant on who is doing them

Where is the relevance?

[AndrewJB]

So you really think the EU could potentially stop the rest of the UK exporting food to Ireland, thus the potential to create food shortages?

You do realise that's illegal don't you?

Obviously not.

I haven’t seen any of them question why Johnson signed it.

[martin_p]

I haven’t seen any of them question why Johnson signed it.

I haven’t seen any of them question why Johnson has done anything.

[martin_p]

Yes, so where is your outrage?

If the EU were planning to do it you might get some.

[Damo]

Where is the relevance?

Both broke international trading laws

[Spijed]

Yes, so where is your outrage?

So how on earth can they stop Britain supplying food?

[Mala591]

Some interesting tweets from the man leading our trade negotiations:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidGHFrost

[aggi]

It's a bit of a "he said, she said" impasse.

The UK claiming that the EU have threatened to not put them on the approved list of supplier countries, the EU claiming that the UK hasn't provided them with the information to allow them to be added (there's a fairly hefty list of obligations which, you assume, the UK was aware of).

Obviously there's the issue of due diligence and why the UK government didn't foresee this could be an issue but it does seem like none of their cheerleaders expect them to actually consider what they are signing which is lucky.

As for those panicking about NI having food shortages, DSR will be along soon to tell you there's nothing to worry about.

[martin_p]

Both broke international trading laws

How?

[aggi]

The wording the government signed seems fairly clear:

[martin_p]

Some interesting tweets from the man leading our trade negotiations:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidGHFrost

It’s hilarious that the UK government seems to be worried that moving food from GB to NI might be illegal given the events of the last week.

[martin_p]

Another ‘extremist remainer’, Geoffrey Cox, has attacked the government for planning to break international law.

[Mala591]

EU seem to be up to their 'old tricks' by refusing further (serious) negotiations until they have got their own way on our state aid and fisheries policies.

[JohnMcGreal]

So it just shows that for some ardent Brexiters like Cox and Howard, there is still a limit to what they will support in the name of Brexit. This is clearly a line that they will simply not cross.

Which makes you wonder if there are any limits at all for the servile sycophants who seem to support this Vote Leave government no matter what it does.

Off the top of my head in the last year we’ve seen Johnson’s governments:

- Unlawfully prorogue Parliament
- Fight tooth and nail to supress the Russia Report, which quite clearly showed how badly compromised the UK’s political and financial systems are, and how little those in power care
- Completely mishandle a pandemic leading to a shocking death toll as well as a battered economy
- Defend the indefensible in Dominic Cummings after his rule breaking trips to the North East, at the expense of public trust in the government’s messaging
- Make a total cock up of A level and GCSE results, leading to god knows how much anxiety to millions of young people and their families
- Intend to undermine a treaty that itself signed up to not a year ago, and has admitted it will break the law in the process

I mean, if none of those things are enough to bring even a shred of disapproval or criticism from their die-hard supporters, then I really don’t think anything will. A good number of people are quite simply too far gone. They’ve taken leave of their senses and can no longer see what’s right in the front of them.

I'd really love to be proved wrong, but from what I’ve seen on here and elsewhere, the usual suspects are still more than happy to get stuck in to defend this disgraceful excuse of a government.

[martin_p]

It's a bit of a "he said, she said" impasse.

The UK claiming that the EU have threatened to not put them on the approved list of supplier countries, the EU claiming that the UK hasn't provided them with the information to allow them to be added (there's a fairly hefty list of obligations which, you assume, the UK was aware of).

Obviously there's the issue of due diligence and why the UK government didn't foresee this could be an issue but it does seem like none of their cheerleaders expect them to actually consider what they are signing which is lucky.

As for those panicking about NI having food shortages, DSR will be along soon to tell you there's nothing to worry about.

Apparently there is nothing in the internal markets bill that will resolve this anyway so it’s a complete red herring.

There’s a good summary of it here (although I realise the fact it’s The Guardian will automatically make it ‘fake news’ for some.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... arket-bill

[AndrewJB]

EU seem to be up to their 'old tricks' by refusing further (serious) negotiations until they have got their own way on our state aid and fisheries policies.

So it’s not the easiest trade deal in history? And Johnson’s oven ready deal isn’t, or wasn’t? Was Johnson lying, or merely deluded? Was his signing of the withdrawal agreement bog standard incompetence, or was it duplicitous?

[dsr]

So it’s not the easiest trade deal in history? And Johnson’s oven ready deal isn’t, or wasn’t? Was Johnson lying, or merely deluded? Was his signing of the withdrawal agreement bog standard incompetence, or was it duplicitous?

It was the easiest trade deal in history - Johnson was correct there. Where you're going wrong is that you assumed that Johnson was speaking for the EU as well as for the UK. If both sides had wanted free trade, it would have been easy; but the EU doesn't want a free trade deal with an independent UK, so they won't sign.

I don't think there is much doubt that the EU was being duplicitous in signing the withdrawal agreement. Yes, Johnson was wrong to trust the EU an inch when (as their supporters have clearly pointed out pretty much since day 1) the EU is in it for themselves and have no intention of fair dealing.

[FactualFrank]

How?

Don't bother debating with this one. Thick as a workhouse sandwich.

[martin_p]

It was the easiest trade deal in history - Johnson was correct there. Where you're going wrong is that you assumed that Johnson was speaking for the EU as well as for the UK. If both sides had wanted free trade, it would have been easy; but the EU doesn't want a free trade deal with an independent UK, so they won't sign.

I don't think there is much doubt that the EU was being duplicitous in signing the withdrawal agreement. Yes, Johnson was wrong to trust the EU an inch when (as their supporters have clearly pointed out pretty much since day 1) the EU is in it for themselves and have no intention of fair dealing.

Which bit of the WA or political declaration have they significantly deviated from?

[dsr]

Which bit of the WA or political declaration have they significantly deviated from?

The bit about "negotiating in good faith".

And obviously the bit about the Good Friday agreement, of course. It goes without saying (or should do) that any threat to treat Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK is a clear breach of the Good Friday agreement.

[FactualFrank]

Dominic Cummings currently tucking into a delicious brunch at home with 10 friends to check his mouth is still working.

[AndrewJB]

It was the easiest trade deal in history - Johnson was correct there. Where you're going wrong is that you assumed that Johnson was speaking for the EU as well as for the UK. If both sides had wanted free trade, it would have been easy; but the EU doesn't want a free trade deal with an independent UK, so they won't sign.

I don't think there is much doubt that the EU was being duplicitous in signing the withdrawal agreement. Yes, Johnson was wrong to trust the EU an inch when (as their supporters have clearly pointed out pretty much since day 1) the EU is in it for themselves and have no intention of fair dealing.

So it was the easiest trade deal in history, except they hadn’t factored into the equation that the other side would be negotiating as well?

And in the act of signing the Withdrawal Agreement, the EU was being duplicitous, because they should have known all along that holding the U.K. government to their word is what scoundrels do? Had the EU tried to alter the agreement for their own benefit, would that have been okay? Do you think Johnson made a mistake in signing the agreement?

[martin_p]

The bit about "negotiating in good faith".

And obviously the bit about the Good Friday agreement, of course. It goes without saying (or should do) that any threat to treat Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK is a clear breach of the Good Friday agreement.

Why is wanting to negotiate on the basis of what’s in the WA and PD ‘bad faith’? Some examples would be good.

I’ll ignore the second sentence.

[martin_p]

See a Tory MP has resigned from his role (albeit a very minor one) in the government over the plans to break international law. Another ‘extremist remainer’ no doubt.

[AndrewJB]

May’s deal kept the UK together. The Irish Sea border is something Johnson agreed to, possibly to differentiate his deal from May’s. And then he tried to hide it from scrutiny.

[dsr]

So it was the easiest trade deal in history, except they hadn’t factored into the equation that the other side would be negotiating as well?

And in the act of signing the Withdrawal Agreement, the EU was being duplicitous, because they should have known all along that holding the U.K. government to their word is what scoundrels do? Had the EU tried to alter the agreement for their own benefit, would that have been okay? Do you think Johnson made a mistake in signing the agreement?

Obviously with hindsight it might have been better to leave the EU two years to the day after the referendum and ignore the farce of negotiations. Except of course then we would never have known what would have happened.

Yes, in signing the Withdrawal Agreement the EU was being duplicitous. Duplicity is using sneaky or underhand ways to get your own way while claiming (possibly correctly) to have follwed the letter of the agreement. Duplicity is what insurance companies do by insisting that the small print in clause 34 b part 2 means that your house insurance doesn't cover fire on a day with a Y in it. Duplicity is claiming that the Good Friday agreement is paramount while threatening to force different rules for Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

The Withdrawal Agreement should never have included any mechanism for treating NI significantly different from the UK. That was an error and because of that clause, the Withdrawal Agreement should never have been signed. We should have gone on and withdrawn without it. Both sides made a mistake in signing - except that I don't believe the EU did make a mistake. I think they knew the implications and were being duplicitous.