[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[caervek]

The UK has said it wants a Canada style agreement it is the EU that wants to a closer - and potentially more complex - relationship.

You're kinda looking at it backwards, it's not that the EU wants a more complex relationship, it's that the UK is after a much less complex relationship than we currently have.

Of course the big issue is still that the only reason Canada ever got a "Canada style deal" in the first place is because they're six thousand kilometres from mainland Europe, not thirty kilometres from mainland Europe and sharing a border with en EU country like the UK is. This is the big issue that our government keep ignoring/dodging while they rave about an impossible Canada deal in order to give the illusion they're actually trying to get a deal done (and the complementary illusion that it's the EU being awkward).

[Pann]

You're kinda looking at it backwards, it's not that the EU wants a more complex relationship, it's that the UK is after a much less complex relationship than we currently have.

Of course the big issue is still that the only reason Canada ever got a "Canada style deal" in the first place is because they're six thousand kilometres from mainland Europe, not thirty kilometres from mainland Europe and sharing a border with en EU country like the UK is. This is the big issue that our government keep ignoring/dodging while they rave about an impossible Canada deal in order to give the illusion they're actually trying to get a deal done (and the complementary illusion that it's the EU being awkward).

You do know that the EU suggested a Canada style deal?

In Oct 17 Barnier said "..."have to work on a model that is closer to the agreement signed with Canada". - https://news.sky.com/story/michel-ba...th-eu-11096092

'“The only way to do it without difficulties is by staying within the internal market. That would be the Norway model, but the British government rejects it,” he said. “Another option would be a free trade agreement like the CETA-deal with Canada.”'

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...style-eu-deal/

Again in September 18, when he told May that the Chequers' deal was not acceptable he mentioned "...an alternative which he was working on - which was based upon a free trade agreement such as the one signed with Canada…"

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

A FTA similar to Canada deal was very clearly displayed in Barnier's famous Future Relationship slide published in 2017.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...15-12-2017.pdf

Now hear me out, I am working on a couple of out there assumptions that the UK has not shifted geographical location since the publication of that slide or Barnier's comments and that the EU have an atlas or access to Google Earth and are therefore aware of where the UK is located in relation to the EU thus the proximity of the UK to the EU was not an issue at least at the time.

[Kronik85]

I'm not sure that would be the case, if Johnson had done nothing and just let the time run down to no-deal he would have been able to blame May for the disastrous election that saw the Cons majority whittled away, the rebels in his own party, the rest of parliament for not passing the deal on offer as well as the EU for refusing to renegotiate with him. Whilst no doubt remainers would not swayed by any of this I feel that he would have had enough backing from leaver supporters to see him through.[

The fact that he did renegotiate another deal with the EU which he then subsequently ran his election campaign on puts an expectation on him, not only from within his party but from the electorate as well, to see it through.

I think the bolded part here is a severe mischaracterisation of what BoJo ran his campaign on. He ran on "Get Brexit done", his renegotiation shows the fine print "at any cost". I think the EU were stunned when BoJo came in with "Well this Ireland thing is a bit of sticky wicket isn't it? How about you just, you know, have it?". The fact the Brexiteers in the party never made a fucking sound about a deal which effectively ceded a British territory to the EU demonstrates how in bed with those fucktards BoJo is.

I think we're getting a philosophical here.

I, obviously, don't know how much Johnson cares about the deal or not but I would assume that he, like most PMs, is concerned about his legacy and as Brexit will form a massive part of it he therefore has at least some incentive to make the best of it.

Some people will blame the EU regardless of facts just as some will blame Johnson no matter what happens. Most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.

Now this is interesting, because you talk of legacy here and how that means BoJo must be invested in making Brexit a success. Well we all know that there is no economic success to be had from Brexit and BoJo knows this. Where May went wrong is that she engaged with Brexit on a technical level when the reality of it is that Brexit is all about emotion. The economics don't matter, making a success of Brexit for BoJo isn't going to be making this fantastic trade deal no one thinks is actually going to happen but how he stood up to the EU. That will benefit him more in the polls than anything economic.

What has the government done that makes no deal more likely? Isn't a bit early to make this kind of assumption seeing as the WA was only agreed a little over a month ago and there has only been one set meetings so far? I agree that the imposed deadline certainly adds to the possibility but with the election result as it was and the frustration of voters with endless delays there was never going to be the possibility (outside of something extreme - and as I have said before I expect that Coronavirus will cause a delay) of extending.

You are right it's early days, and both sides are making rather grand overtures in their demands. But removing worker protections, "fuck the ECJ" and "lel level playing field" hasn't exactly set the stage for compromise.

[Pann]

I think the bolded part here is a severe mischaracterisation of what BoJo ran his campaign on. He ran on "Get Brexit done", his renegotiation shows the fine print "at any cost". I think the EU were stunned when BoJo came in with "Well this Ireland thing is a bit of sticky wicket isn't it? How about you just, you know, have it?". The fact the Brexiteers in the party never made a fucking sound about a deal which effectively ceded a British territory to the EU demonstrates how in bed with those fucktards BoJo is.

The Con party manifesto states:

"Now that we have elected a majority of Conservative MPs to Parliament, we will start putting our deal through Parliament before Christmas and we will leave the European Union in January.

Boris Johnson’s new deal takes the whole country out of the EU as one United Kingdom. It takes us out of the customs union, allowing us to set our own tariffs and do our own trade deals. It allows us to pass our own laws and ensures that it is our courts that enforce them

Our deal is the only one on the table. It is signed, sealed and ready. It puts the whole country on a path to a new free trade agreement with the EU. This will be a new relationship based on free trade and friendly cooperation, not on the EU’s treaties or EU law. There will be no political alignment with the EU. We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.

[...]

We will negotiate a trade agreement next year – one that will strengthen our Union..."

(I've kept their bold cos they seem to like it.)

It seems quite clear to me that their intention to pass Johnson's oven ready™ deal and to negotiate a FTA. However regardless of what or what was not in their manifesto people will make their minds based on their perception, if they feel Johnson has let them down they will not vote for him again regardless of the existence of some sort of small print.

I don't know why the EU would be surprised that he offered a border down the Irish Sea as it was their idea in the first place.

Now this is interesting, because you talk of legacy here and how that means BoJo must be invested in making Brexit a success. Well we all know that there is no economic success to be had from Brexit and BoJo knows this. Where May went wrong is that she engaged with Brexit on a technical level when the reality of it is that Brexit is all about emotion. The economics don't matter, making a success of Brexit for BoJo isn't going to be making this fantastic trade deal no one thinks is actually going to happen but how he stood up to the EU. That will benefit him more in the polls than anything economic.

There are plenty of other measures of success aside from economic - in particular GDP which seems to have been seized upon by the overnight global free trade experts - pretty much every leaver I have spoken to, read comments from, seen interviewed, etc does not see economic performance as the priority of leaving the EU.

You may disagree with them, you may even think that it is in part misguided nationalism but ultimately you nor I get to decide what is or isn't a success for them. It will be them (who voted Johnson in) who decide whether Johnson has made a success of Brexit and it will them who vote him out of office if he gets it wrong.

Also, GDP is a meaningless measurement for the average person in the UK, for example it is certain that economic output is going to be severely impacted by coronavirus but the inevitable government borrowing will lessen the hit to our GDP. It is entirely possible that GDP growth will be lower but the economic indicators that do matter to the man on the Clapham Omnibus - so to speak - will show improvement after Brexit. I am sceptical but you never know.

From a personal point of view I am prepared to give Johnson a chance - it's not like I have any other choice - and I hope that I am proved wrong and he does make a success of it.

You are right it's early days, and both sides are making rather grand overtures in their demands. But removing worker protections, "fuck the ECJ" and "lel level playing field" hasn't exactly set the stage for compromise.

What worker protections are the government removing? Is there any other independent nation - other than Norway which is the only one that springs to mind - that allows a foreign court to rule over its laws? To be honest I don't why anyone is bothered about the ECJ as most people don't even know what its role is or the difference between it and the ECtHR. The UK is quite willing to accept a level playing field, as evidenced by the fact it seeks a deal similar to the one offered to Canada - which has a rather lengthy section on agreed standards, etc - what the EU is asking for is not a level playing field but the ability to set our laws and standards.

[Inuyaki]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...rexit-21694725

Brexit: Making the NHS great again /s

[Mayhem]

You do know that the EU suggested a Canada style deal?

In Oct 17 Barnier said "..."have to work on a model that is closer to the agreement signed with Canada". - https://news.sky.com/story/michel-ba...th-eu-11096092

'“The only way to do it without difficulties is by staying within the internal market. That would be the Norway model, but the British government rejects it,” he said. “Another option would be a free trade agreement like the CETA-deal with Canada.”'

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...style-eu-deal/

Again in September 18, when he told May that the Chequers' deal was not acceptable he mentioned "...an alternative which he was working on - which was based upon a free trade agreement such as the one signed with Canada…"

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

A FTA similar to Canada deal was very clearly displayed in Barnier's famous Future Relationship slide published in 2017.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...15-12-2017.pdf

Now hear me out, I am working on a couple of out there assumptions that the UK has not shifted geographical location since the publication of that slide or Barnier's comments and that the EU have an atlas or access to Google Earth and are therefore aware of where the UK is located in relation to the EU thus the proximity of the UK to the EU was not an issue at least at the time.

Man is your english really that bad?

Don't you see a difference between "copy the Canada deal" and "have a Canada-like deal"? Guess what the later means? Yup, negotiations.

[Gibblewink]

The EU has also on a number of occasions said that there is probably not enough time to do a CETA style deal, which one might take as a subtle hint that the schedule should be extended, the expectations for the trade deal lowered or both.
As far as the implications that the EU somehow signed off on the UK ideas when they accepted the WA I'd like to point out that there is no onus what so ever on the EU to try and meet the UK's wishes. That the UK has stated what they want and when they want it does not mean we have to give it to them. That does not however mean we walk away in a huff; we sty at the table to try and get the best deal that can be had while hoping that sanity shows up late on the other side of the table.

[Teleros]

How exactly is risking the death of thousands a measure that builds up trust?

Makes it look like you're willing to make hard choices / sacrifices for the greater good.

Looks as expected to me? If the UK wants somewhat close trade relations they need to abide by EU rules and rulings, just like any other country that wants to trade without a bunch of tarrifs applying.

Tariffs =/= regulatory barriers. Not that it'll matter in this specific case, as BoJo won't be implementing any "deal" that says the UK must accept ECJ rulings.

Remember, this is the EU's opening to the negotiations, this is what they would like. Then the 2 sides negotiate and arrive somewhere in between of what both sides want, while keeping in mind the red lines on both sides. And if those are a problem the negotiations fail, that's how the world works.

This.

But CETA took 5 years to hammer out, Boris seems determined to do it in 9 months. The only way to get this sorted in 9 months is for minimal deviation from EU rules and regulations, the further away the UK moves the longer a treaty is going to take.

Or go the opposite route: assume WTO rules & just negotiate on a few other things.

Trying to bind the UK to EU rules & regulations is not going to happen though. That's kind of the point in having an independent trade policy. Obviously, this means that if UK goods don't meet EU standards that they can't be sold in the EU, but that's (a) fair and (b) nothing unexpected. I would expect many UK manufacturers etc to voluntarily meet EU standards for this very reason - but the key thing is it's a voluntary thing, whereas if it's in the treaty then it's compulsory.

The fatality rate is about 7%.

Unless of course you're somehow not counting recovered against deceased but recovered and active cases against deceased which would put it at about 2-3% fatality rate.

Recovered vs deceased when it's not known how many people have it is a shoddy measure of a disease's fatality. Remember that kids seem to be virtually immune, especially WRT showing symptoms.

That said, amongst those known to have it, it's definitely well above 1-3% for certain age brackets and the like.

If no deal was Johnson's aim he could have had it the end of last year - when he took office the EU had said it's May's deal, take it or leave it, parliament was paralysed with indecision and would agree to anything, he could have just run the clock down and blamed not only the EU but parliament as well.

Instead he negotiated an alternative deal and tried to and eventually did pass it through parliament. Why do this if no deal is his end game?

Politics is the art of the possible, don't forget. If he wants / expects a clean Brexit outcome, but doesn't think that'll fly in Parliament (even the current one), or in the country, it makes sense to spend a year in pointless negotiations for the PR. "Well chums, we tried but the EU was just too intransigent, wouldn't you know, so I guess no deal it is" he says, straining all the while to look too smug.

Don't you see a difference between "copy the Canada deal" and "have a Canada-like deal"? Guess what the later means? Yup, negotiations.

True, but it would be odd if it took that long to basically copy & paste the Canada deal text into the UK-EU agreement, and then make whatever revisions you desired. If the Canadian deal is, say, 90% okay for the UK & EU deal (at least from the EU perspective), why not start at 90% and fill in the remaining 10% than start over?

[Mayhem]

Makes it look like you're willing to make hard choices / sacrifices for the greater good.

Except there are other measures that are less sacrificial but hey if you're country hates old people that much, sure that's a handy excuse.

Recovered vs deceased when it's not known how many people have it is a shoddy measure of a disease's fatality. Remember that kids seem to be virtually immune, especially WRT showing symptoms.

That said, amongst those known to have it, it's definitely well above 1-3% for certain age brackets and the like.

Making projections based on unknown numbers is even more shoddy.

True, but it would be odd if it took that long to basically copy & paste the Canada deal text into the UK-EU agreement, and then make whatever revisions you desired. If the Canadian deal is, say, 90% okay for the UK & EU deal (at least from the EU perspective), why not start at 90% and fill in the remaining 10% than start over?

90% means nothing if the remaining 10% is stuff that needs the rewriting of major parts of the agreement. Also, how do you feel about the needed personnel to cope with the amount of customs checks needed regardless if a Canada-style deal was reached? What are the numbers floating around, 50k customs officers? Damn, that's a hefty price tag.

[Pann]

Politics is the art of the possible, don't forget. If he wants / expects a clean Brexit outcome, but doesn't think that'll fly in Parliament (even the current one), or in the country, it makes sense to spend a year in pointless negotiations for the PR. "Well chums, we tried but the EU was just too intransigent, wouldn't you know, so I guess no deal it is" he says, straining all the while to look too smug.

Does it? Really? Johnson - the remainer until he found out that leave would be of more benefit to his career - now wants a clean Brexit???

I am not going to point out again how he could have reached this apparent goal with little or, more importantly, no effort.

What is the benefit to this so called clean Brexit - which sounds like something Mark Francois would come up with - we aren't going to trade with our closest neighbours on WTO terms for any longer than need be. Even if the UK does end up walking away without a deal whenever the transition period ends that will not be the end of the negotiations both sides will continue to negotiate until a deal can be reached.

Occam's razor states that the situation with the smallest number assumptions is usually correct, the whole Johnson is trying to engineer no-deal requires a number of simply incredible assumptions - the kind of assumptions that would not look out of place as the central plot to a bad daytime TV drama.

[Teleros]

Making projections based on unknown numbers is even more shoddy.

Well if you want the actual death rate... yeah check back in six months or so. But when we know for example that children are hardly symptomatic at all, and when the R0 for the bug is what, 4-6? ... yeah just using died/recovered numbers of known cases is a bad idea. Doubly so when the age brackets matter so much too.

90% means nothing if the remaining 10% is stuff that needs the rewriting of major parts of the agreement.

Hardly, but w/e.

Also, how do you feel about the needed personnel to cope with the amount of customs checks needed regardless if a Canada-style deal was reached? What are the numbers floating around, 50k customs officers? Damn, that's a hefty price tag.

Depends on the reliability of the numbers floating around obviously.

= = =

Does it? Really? Johnson - the remainer until he found out that leave would be of more benefit to his career - now wants a clean Brexit???

Clean Brexit = no deal Brexit. As to what BoJo wants, I think he wants to be the next Winston Churchill, saving his country and all that palaver, and therefore if he has to be a hardline Brexiteer to go down in the history books (at least the ones he'll be writing ) that way, then that's how he'll act.

What is the benefit to this so called clean Brexit - which sounds like something Mark Francois would come up with - we aren't going to trade with our closest neighbours on WTO terms for any longer than need be. Even if the UK does end up walking away without a deal whenever the transition period ends that will not be the end of the negotiations both sides will continue to negotiate until a deal can be reached.

From what I can see, the best bet for the Remoaners to keep the UK bound to the EU is to get their idea of a good deal done during the transition period. The longer it is for them, the more inertia is on the side of Brexit.

Occam's razor states that the situation with the smallest number assumptions is usually correct, the whole Johnson is trying to engineer no-deal requires a number of simply incredible assumptions - the kind of assumptions that would not look out of place as the central plot to a bad daytime TV drama.

I'm not sure Occam's razor is of much use in politics TBH (or that this requires an "incredible" number of assumptions), but regardless of that, I'm not actually sure what the plan is. So much of politics is kabuki theatre we'd all be daft to say such-and-such is definitely the real plan.

[Pann]

Clean Brexit = no deal Brexit. As to what BoJo wants, I think he wants to be the next Winston Churchill, saving his country and all that palaver, and therefore if he has to be a hardline Brexiteer to go down in the history books (at least the ones he'll be writing ) that way, then that's how he'll act.

I'm aware of what it means. So a bit like the bloke who likes to burn down buildings so he can rescue the occupants?!? Brilliant - what could possibly go wrong with that?!?

Do you not think the chance of someone noticing this plan is really quite high?

From what I can see, the best bet for the Remoaners to keep the UK bound to the EU is to get their idea of a good deal done during the transition period. The longer it is for them, the more inertia is on the side of Brexit.

That in no way addresses anything I wrote.

I'm not sure Occam's razor is of much use in politics TBH (or that this requires an "incredible" number of assumptions), but regardless of that, I'm not actually sure what the plan is. So much of politics is kabuki theatre we'd all be daft to say such-and-such is definitely the real plan.

The stated plan is to negotiate a deal and if this cannot be achieved within the transition period leave without one at the end of it, compared to the whole engineering no-deal whilst hoping that no-one notices what is going on and says "hang on a minute" seems really quite simple.

[Teleros]

So a bit like the bloke who likes to burn down buildings so he can rescue the occupants?!? Brilliant - what could possibly go wrong with that?!?

Well, only if "burn down the building" is equivalent to "leave the EU as the electorate demanded". Which I'm not sure it is, now that I think about it .

Do you not think the chance of someone noticing this plan is really quite high?

So? It's only an issue of people act against you based on their noticing of said plan. If you notice and say "hey, sneaky trick BoJo" or "whatever, I'll vote for the Tories because {other reason}", etc etc etc, then the plan's worked even though it's been noticed.

And that's assuming he doesn't just outright lie & deny it .

That in no way addresses anything I wrote.

Maintaining the national sovereignty won from Brexit is a very clear benefit, no?

The stated plan is to negotiate a deal and if this cannot be achieved within the transition period leave without one at the end of it, compared to the whole engineering no-deal whilst hoping that no-one notices what is going on and says "hang on a minute" seems really quite simple.

See above. Mind you, a lot depends on how you define things in terms of simplicity. "Give them unacceptable demands until we run out the clock" is very simple compared to "negotiate a suitable deal based on A and B and C and D and..." after all.

[Pann]

Well, only if "burn down the building" is equivalent to "leave the EU as the electorate demanded". Which I'm not sure it is, now that I think about it .

Did the electorate demand to leave the EU without a deal? I'm not sure that they did.

So? It's only an issue of people act against you based on their noticing of said plan. If you notice and say "hey, sneaky trick BoJo" or "whatever, I'll vote for the Tories because {other reason}", etc etc etc, then the plan's worked even though it's been noticed.

And that's assuming he doesn't just outright lie & deny it .

Riiight... so if people are not going to have problem with Johnson leaving without a deal - although this still does not address the point that a deal will be needed at some point - they why the need for all the misdirection and subterfuge?

Of course because if he lies everyone will simply believe him and obviously there will no-one about to point out that he was lying.

This plan gets better and better.

Maintaining the national sovereignty won from Brexit is a very clear benefit, no?

I didn't ask for a benefit of Brexit I asked what was the benefit of leaving without a deal compared to leaving with one.

See above. Mind you, a lot depends on how you define things in terms of simplicity. "Give them unacceptable demands until we run out the clock" is very simple compared to "negotiate a suitable deal based on A and B and C and D and..." after all.

Given that we're asking for a Canada style deal which prior to actually asking for it EU apparently thought it was an option I think that he has kinda messed up this whole unacceptable demands malarkey.

Unless...

... he knew that the EU didn't really mean it when they said that a deal like CETA was an option!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

The plot thickens...

I just thought... what if the EU are in on this? Would no deal really be no deal? And would Johnson really want no deal if it was the EU's idea? Brexit-ception!

[Gorsameth]

Did the electorate demand to leave the EU without a deal? I'm not sure that they did.



Riiight... so if people are not going to have problem with Johnson leaving without a deal - although this still does not address the point that a deal will be needed at some point - they why the need for all the misdirection and subterfuge?

Of course because if he lies everyone will simply believe him and obviously there will no-one about to point out that he was lying.

This plan gets better and better.



I didn't ask for a benefit of Brexit I asked what was the benefit of leaving without a deal compared to leaving with one.



Given that we're asking for a Canada style deal which prior to actually asking for it EU apparently thought it was an option I think that he has kinda messed up this whole unacceptable demands malarkey.

Unless...

... he knew that the EU didn't really mean it when they said that a deal like CETA was an option!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

The plot thickens...

I just thought... what if the EU are in on this? Would no deal really be no deal? And would Johnson really want no deal if it was the EU's idea? Brexit-ception!

You keep pulling the idea that a Canada style deal is off the table out of your ass, when that simply isn't the case.
Just because its not the EU's opening standpoint of the negotiation doesn't mean just shit. If the UK wants a trade deal they can have it, but like every other trad deal its going to take a while to sort out. Time the UK, and only the UK, is denying itself.

[Pann]

You keep pulling the idea that a Canada style deal is off the table out of your ass, when that simply isn't the case.
Just because its not the EU's opening standpoint of the negotiation doesn't mean just shit. If the UK wants a trade deal they can have it, but like every other trad deal its going to take a while to sort out. Time the UK, and only the UK, is denying itself.

I am not sure you're in any position to accuse anyone of pulling anything out their arse you know people in glass houses and all that.

That is what Barnier has said citing "...a unique territorial and economic closeness, which is why it can’t be compared to Canada or South Korea or Japan" - presumably forgetting this closeness when previously suggesting a Canada style deal in 2017 and again in 2018. Is he mistaken?

The time constraints are an entirely separate issue.

[Gorsameth]

I am not sure you're in any position to accuse anyone of pulling anything out their arse you know people in glass houses and all that.

That is what Barnier has said citing "...a unique territorial and economic closeness, which is why it can’t be compared to Canada or South Korea or Japan" - presumably forgetting this closeness when previously suggesting a Canada style deal in 2017 and again in 2018. Is he mistaken?

The time constraints are an entirely separate issue.

He isn't mistaken, your just to zero'd in on a duplicate deal of Canada.
To reference the popular image of the types of deals that the EU has.

A Canada style deal is a deal that doesn't have any of the red lines mentioned by the UK which are a requirement for closer trade relations with the EU. If options A,B,C,D and E are all red lines then you get to F, like Canada. And the UK can have a deal F, like Canada but because of its closeness its going to be a bit different from the deal Canada got offered.

And funny enough while looking for that image I found this from back in 2017 from the EU Council conclusions back when May triggered article 50.


So again. The UK has known this for as long as Brexit has been going on.

[Pann]

He isn't mistaken, your just to zero'd in on a duplicate deal of Canada.
To reference the popular image of the types of deals that the EU has.

A Canada style deal is a deal that doesn't have any of the red lines mentioned by the UK which are a requirement for closer trade relations with the EU. If options A,B,C,D and E are all red lines then you get to F, like Canada. And the UK can have a deal F, like Canada but because of its closeness its going to be a bit different from the deal Canada got offered.

And funny enough while looking for that image I found this from back in 2017 from the EU Council conclusions back when May triggered article 50.


So again. The UK has known this for as long as Brexit has been going on.

Oh, great. So why did you say that time was the issue when Barnier clearly states it is the UK's closeness?

What red lines are you going on about? The UK has said it would like a Canada style deal I'm not sure why you're even mentioning other relationships that the UK has no interest in pursuing. Do you even know what the EU is proposing?

Brilliant! I'm really not sure what you think that proves but I am pretty sure that most of us - okay some of us - in the UK are at least somewhat aware that the UK is located pretty close to the EU and that known before Brexit.

[Gorsameth]

Oh, great. So why did you say that time was the issue when Barnier clearly states it is the UK's closeness?

What red lines are you going on about? The UK has said it would like a Canada style deal I'm not sure why you're even mentioning other relationships that the UK has no interest in pursuing. Do you even know what the EU is proposing?

Brilliant! I'm really not sure what you think that proves but I am pretty sure that most of us - okay some of us - in the UK are at least somewhat aware that the UK is located pretty close to the EU and that known before Brexit.

Sign again.
UK's closeness makes things more complicated. Complications can be overcome through negotiation, negotiation takes time. Time that the UK has decided we don't have.

Because you still don't understand that a 'Canada style deal' is simply a deal that isn't any of the preceding levels of connectivity. Its an 'everything else' type of situation.

Obviously it caught some people in the UK government offguard that the closeness of the UK might add extra complications to a trade deal, or they wouldn't be kicking up a fuss about it now.

[Pann]

Sign again.
UK's closeness makes things more complicated. Complications can be overcome through negotiation, negotiation takes time. Time that the UK has decided we don't have.

Because you still don't understand that a 'Canada style deal' is simply a deal that isn't any of the preceding levels of connectivity. Its an 'everything else' type of situation.

Obviously it caught some people in the UK government offguard that the closeness of the UK might add extra complications to a trade deal, or they wouldn't be kicking up a fuss about it now.

Barnier also said "[the EU remained] ready to work very quickly with the UK". Why not just admit that you were again making things up?

Do you not think that there might be a slight clue in the words "Canada style deal" as to what a "Canada style deal" might entail? I can assure you that having read what's in the Canada/EU agreement the idea that it is an 'everything else' situation is complete and utter nonsense. Quite frankly what you've written is embarrassing!

Did it? Where does that text come from and what does it relate to? How do you think this might relate to your claim?

Seriously why do you bother? You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.