The Brexit aftermath thread

[Gorsameth]

Oh, and it's good to see that in the thread devoted to Brexit there is absolutely no mention of the EU's draft treaty. If the leak in The Guardian - who will try to put as positive EU spin on the story as possible - is anything to go by then no-deal is looking increasing likely.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-draft-treaty

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.

[Pann]

Don't need to be an expert on this but hey, nothing new for you there to handwave things. First article link is anything but flattering for your current government approach to not say it is going based on quite a few positive assumptions in the near future. Secondly simply telling people to "social distance" themselves and not taking action to change this won't do anything.

Second article, To be expected the EU won't budge for the UK, why would it. Much rather an economic crisis on both sides for a time than botching up our system for a single former member state. If britania wants to avoid a no deal they can comply. Unreasonable? Well same way is felt from this side of the pond darling.


ps: Just so you know that first article you link says that it is better to let elderly die because they are old anyway, instead of denying them physical contact to others. You share that sentiment?

Of course you don't! Obviously you, as some random person on the internet, knows more about COVID-19 than the CMO or other such experts.

The UK is not asking the EU to botch anything - it appears that your knowledge of Brexit is on a par with your expertise on emerging viruses! Oh and by the way - the pond refers to the Atlantic Ocean which we - the UK - are on the same side of as the rest of Europe.

It really doesn't. I suggest that you try reading the article.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The UK has repeatedly said that it wants a trade deal similar to other third nations and that it must be able to deviate from EU law. And being bound by the rules and ruling of the EU is not a requirement for the reduction of tariffs.

[Mayhem]

I understand that for the experts on communicable diseases who've descended upon this thread that this article is probably old news and no doubt contrary to their expertise but it gives a good picture of what the government are trying to achieve and the challenges they (we) are up against.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-13/...robert-peston/

How is it contrary if it agrees with most of what has been said?`

Did you read it? Please then quote the contrary parts.

- - - Updated - - -

The UK has repeatedly said that it wants a trade deal similar to other third nations and that it must be able to deviate from EU law. And being bound by the rules and ruling of the EU is not a requirement for the reduction of tariffs.

The UK can repeatedly say whatever they want, they are the only country that has a situation like Northern Ireland and they aren't really willing to solve that issue, so obviously there can't be a comparable or similar trade deal because there is no comparable or similar situation.

[Forogil]

I understand that for the experts on communicable diseases who've descended upon this thread that this article is probably old news and no doubt contrary to their expertise but it gives a good picture of what the government are trying to achieve and the challenges they (we) are up against.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-13/...robert-peston/

That article is pretty bad.

First he is claiming that much is based on which percentage gets which severity of the disease claiming that we don't have data. Except that we data from S. Korea that have done massive testing - and they wouldn't have missed a significant portion of asymptomatic cases, or how many need hospital care.

Then he is "predicting" what they will do in the future and giving "insightful" comments about the draw-backs.

But that's basically just copied from what the government said, i.e. the government stated that they will not yet restrict visits to nursing homes because that will cause the elderly to be depressed which is bad in itself and currently the level of infections does not warrant this, and then this journalist "predicts" that they will soon recommend that "that older people and those with chronic illness should be barred from any but essential physical contact with people." and "But for those who are old, and may in any case have not much longer to live, it is miserable to be cut off from those they love. In fact it is worse than that. For some old and infirm, ending contact for an extended period with their loved ones can lead to chronic depression, and cause some to give up the will to live.".

Yes, the latter is a problem and still that is what the government will do in awhile - not because Preston has some deep understanding, but because the government stated this as their plan.

[Acidbaron]

Of course you don't! Obviously you, as some random person on the internet, knows more about COVID-19 than the CMO or other such experts.

The UK is not asking the EU to botch anything - it appears that your knowledge of Brexit is on a par with your expertise on emerging viruses! Oh and by the way - the pond refers to the Atlantic Ocean which we - the UK - are on the same side of as the rest of Europe.

It really doesn't. I suggest that you try reading the article.

- - - Updated - - -



The UK has repeatedly said that it wants a trade deal similar to other third nations and that it must be able to deviate from EU law. And being bound by the rules and ruling of the EU is not a requirement for the reduction of tariffs.

The irony, do read the article. Now back onto brexit, the UK wants once more special treatment not going to happen, this is not a surprise, this is not new this is what the EU has said all along and what UK politicians said they were going to change despite a year of not even the slightest indication that the EU would budge on this.

The UK does not want something similar to third nations, they want the "first row" access to all the markets with none of the "first row" laws and standards. So they can create an unfair market situation in their advantage and risk health and safety standards on the mainland for economic reasons. Not going to happen.

A trade deal is a requirement for reduction of tariffs and those are tied to EU rules and standards. So they very much are, did you all just voted to leave because the EU was more than an economic block but also a political one? That's being generous and even assuming most of you know what they voted for.
Access to the EU market comes with strings, this has been the case for a long time yet suddenly you expect this to be different because BoJo said so?

[Forogil]

A lot of the disinterest in following safety measures is also based on lack of credible threat. That doesn't apply right now with daily apocalyptic news bulletins.

You are still missing point, as many others.

But we will see how well this strategy in the UK and Germany works compared to other strategies within a few months - latest at the end of the year.
And we will likely see whether the UK leaves the EU with or without a deal at the end of the year.

[Acidbaron]

That article is pretty bad.

First he is claiming that much is based on which percentage gets which severity of the disease claiming that we don't have data. Except that we data from S. Korea that have done massive testing - and they wouldn't have missed a significant portion of asymptomatic cases, or how many need hospital care.

Then he is "predicting" what they will do in the future and giving "insightful" comments about the draw-backs.

But that's basically just copied from what the government said, i.e. the government stated that they will not yet restrict visits to nursing homes because that will cause the elderly to be depressed which is bad in itself and currently the level of infections does not warrant this, and then this journalist "predicts" that they will soon recommend that "that older people and those with chronic illness should be barred from any but essential physical contact with people." and "But for those who are old, and may in any case have not much longer to live, it is miserable to be cut off from those they love. In fact it is worse than that. For some old and infirm, ending contact for an extended period with their loved ones can lead to chronic depression, and cause some to give up the will to live.".

Yes, the latter is a problem and still that is what the government will do in awhile - not because Preston has some deep understanding, but because the government stated this as their plan.

To respond only the bolded part, one of the biggest groups that may carry this virus are kids. Which are also the most resistant to this apparently and don't show many symptoms (Thank god for that).
Simply block kids access to the elderly, allow caregivers and those responsible for their care outside of the professional caregivers access to them. Does not have to be an all or nothing game.

[Gorsameth]

Of course you don't! Obviously you, as some random person on the internet, knows more about COVID-19 than the CMO or other such experts.

The UK is not asking the EU to botch anything - it appears that your knowledge of Brexit is on a par with your expertise on emerging viruses! Oh and by the way - the pond refers to the Atlantic Ocean which we - the UK - are on the same side of as the rest of Europe.

It really doesn't. I suggest that you try reading the article.

- - - Updated - - -



The UK has repeatedly said that it wants a trade deal similar to other third nations and that it must be able to deviate from EU law. And being bound by the rules and ruling of the EU is not a requirement for the reduction of tariffs.

And the UK is free to come with a proposal of their own that meets those requirements.

The UK is perfectly able to get a trade deal similar to other third nations but it must understand that the EU will not change its own rules for the UK and that a UK-EU deal is going to look different from a Canada-EU deal simply because they are 2 different countries in 2 different circumstances. Especially on things like equal opportunity and government subsidies considering the UK is right next door to the EU and therefor such things have a bigger impact on EU markets.

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.

[Pann]

That article is pretty bad.

First he is claiming that much is based on which percentage gets which severity of the disease claiming that we don't have data. Except that we data from S. Korea that have done massive testing - and they wouldn't have missed a significant portion of asymptomatic cases, or how many need hospital care.

Then he is "predicting" what they will do in the future and giving "insightful" comments about the draw-backs.

But that's basically just copied from what the government said, i.e. the government stated that they will not yet restrict visits to nursing homes because that will cause the elderly to be depressed which is bad in itself and currently the level of infections does not warrant this, and then this journalist "predicts" that they will soon recommend that "that older people and those with chronic illness should be barred from any but essential physical contact with people." and "But for those who are old, and may in any case have not much longer to live, it is miserable to be cut off from those they love. In fact it is worse than that. For some old and infirm, ending contact for an extended period with their loved ones can lead to chronic depression, and cause some to give up the will to live.".

Yes, the latter is a problem and still that is what the government will do in awhile - not because Preston has some deep understanding, but because the government stated this as their plan.

Peston is simply reporting on what the government knows and how it will proceed in the near term based on that.

We have data from South Korea, as well as from many other nations, other nations however that data is not enough to determine how the virus might progress hence we see different governments from different countries taking different approaches to tackling the outbreak. At his point in time there is no right or wrong as we simply do not know enough and we are all (every nation) in the position where we will have to learn from our mistakes and successes.

No, he is reporting on what the government might do in the future because that is like his job and stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

The irony, do read the article. Now back onto brexit, the UK wants once more special treatment not going to happen, this is not a surprise, this is not new this is what the EU has said all along and what UK politicians said they were going to change despite a year of not even the slightest indication that the EU would budge on this.

The UK does not want something similar to third nations, they want the "first row" access to all the markets with none of the "first row" laws and standards. So they can create an unfair market situation in their advantage and risk health and safety standards on the mainland for economic reasons. Not going to happen.

A trade deal is a requirement for reduction of tariffs and those are tied to EU rules and standards. So they very much are, did you all just voted to leave because the EU was more than an economic block but also a political one? That's being generous and even assuming most of you know what they voted for.
Access to the EU market comes with strings, this has been the case for a long time yet suddenly you expect this to be different because BoJo said so?

It does not - quite literally nothing of what you have written is close to being accurate - it is nothing more than your continued UK bashing.

- - - Updated - - -

And the UK is free to come with a proposal of their own that meets those requirements.

The UK is perfectly able to get a trade deal similar to other third nations but it must understand that the EU will not change its own rules for the UK and that a UK-EU deal is going to look different from a Canada-EU deal simply because they are 2 different countries in 2 different circumstances. Especially on things like equal opportunity and government subsidies considering the UK is right next door to the EU and therefor such things have a bigger impact on EU markets.

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.

It has - it wants the same kind of deal offered to other third nations such as Canada, South Korea or Japan - you know like the one the EU said we could have...

[Acidbaron]

Nice graph, fail to see how that points to anything you said. As others have pointed out different countries, different policies if you fail to see the difference that's on you to shroud yourself in denial.

Your geographical location makes a big part of what sort of "third country" deal you'll get, it really ain't that hard. I know you don't like the brexit or so you claim but you won't get the same benefits and can ignore laws, standards and so forth.

[Gorsameth]

It has - it wants the same kind of deal offered to other third nations such as Canada, South Korea or Japan - you know like the one the EU said we could have..

And your point is?

The EU comes forward with a position, one that still binds the EU and UK, because this is in the EU's interest.
The UK comes with a different position, one that they want and then negotiations happen.

Nothing you have shown contradicts this basic negotiation 101.

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.
This is not a fault of the EU, this is simply how things work. The further away you move the move things need to be considered and evaluated and the more needs to be hammered out and put on paper.
You can't just copy the Canada agreement because Canada is a different country with different rules and different expectations and markets.

[Pann]

And your point is?

The EU comes forward with a position, one that still binds the EU and UK, because this is in the EU's interest.
The UK comes with a different position, one that they want and then negotiations happen.

Nothing you have shown contradicts this basic negotiation 101.

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.
This is not a fault of the EU, this is simply how things work. The further away you move the move things need to be considered and evaluated and the more needs to be hammered out and put on paper.
You can't just copy the Canada agreement because Canada is a different country with different rules and different expectations and markets.

The point is that the EU quite clearly said at the beginning of negotiation period that a FTA similar to the ones negotiated with Canada and Sth Korea were an option that was available - how it appears that when the UK says we'll take that, thank you very much it is no longer the case.

The timetable was agreed and ratified by the EU although I am not sure why you're bringing this up as the issue is not time but what is being proposed.

Also with regard to CETA it was only after the Canadians walked away - with the Canadian Trade Minister in tears saying “It seems obvious that the EU is now not capable of having an international agreement, even with a country that shares European values such as Canada, even with a country that is so kind and patient.

“Canada is disappointed. I am personally very disappointed. I have worked very very hard. We have decided to go home. I am truly very, very sad.” - that things were sorted so I am not sure that that is the best example to use.

[Gorsameth]

The point is that the EU quite clearly said at the beginning of negotiation period that a FTA similar to the ones negotiated with Canada and Sth Korea were an option that was available - how it appears that when the UK says we'll take that, thank you very much it is no longer the case.

Based on what?
The EU opening negotiations from a different position? Again negotiation 101 don't start with the position where you expect to end up.

As for your Canadian Minister remark. That was 2016, the 5 years I mentioned is 2009 to 2014 which was the actual negotiation period for the deal, which was then heavily delayed because of internal EU disagreements which is what your comment refers to. Not entirely relevant to the notion that the deal itself took 5 years to negotiate between the EU and Canada negotiation teams.

[Pann]

Based on what?
The EU opening negotiations from a different position? Again negotiation 101 don't start with the position where you expect to end up.

As for your Canadian Minister remark. That was 2016, the 5 years I mentioned is 2009 to 2014 which was the actual negotiation period for the deal, which was then heavily delayed because of internal EU disagreements which is what your comment refers to. Not entirely relevant to the notion that the deal itself took 5 years to negotiate between the EU and Canada negotiation teams.

Based on what the EU said and their pretty little PowerPoint slide.

No-one is saying that it is. Do you even know what the EU are, potentially, asking for?

The Canadians walked away after five years. I really don't why you've brought this up - unless, of course, your point is that a deal cannot be agreed because the EU will spend so much time bickering amongst themselves. Maybe use a better example such as the Japan/EU FTA?

[Gorsameth]

Based on what the EU said and their pretty little PowerPoint slide.

No-one is saying that it is. Do you even know what the EU are, potentially, asking for?

The Canadians walked away after five years. I really don't why you've brought this up - unless, of course, your point is that a deal cannot be agreed because the EU will spend so much time bickering amongst themselves. Maybe use a better example such as the Japan/EU FTA?

sure. It doesn't get better tho.

Based on the negotiating directives adopted by the Council in November 2012, negotiations were launched in March 2013. In an effort to increase transparency at all stages of the negotiations, this mandate was made public in September 2017. The first round of negotiations was held in April 2013. Following 18 rounds of negotiations and a number of meetings at technical and political levels, a political agreement in principle was reached during the EU-Japan Summit in Brussels, on 6 July 2017.

4 years.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legis...e-eu-japan-epa

My point? That these deals take a long time to reach and Boris is determined to get it done by the end of the year. This is a deadline set by him, not the EU since there is room for extensions.
(ofcourse the reality is that Boris knows this is impossible and uses it as a convenient way to sneak in a no-deal, bypassing Parliament that has repeatedly stopped him from pushing no-deal through openly)

[The Butt Witch]

You guys still brexiting? Is this gonna be like the 50 years old Cuban revolution?

[Forogil]

What point am I missing?

It was emphasized.

Number of deaths just doubled. We should still be seeing low single-digit increases in mortality even with exponential growth. It might be a random spike but that does not bode well at all.

Herd immunity about 60%, fatality rate is about 1%. The UK and France each has about 67 millions inhabitants.
A rough estimate gives 400,000 deaths per country.

That is the number that we should aim to lower, and the current deaths are not that significant in that perspective.

But as stated before this is not the thread to discuss it.

[Pann]

sure. It doesn't get better tho.
4 years.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legis...e-eu-japan-epa

My point? That these deals take a long time to reach and Boris is determined to get it done by the end of the year. This is a deadline set by him, not the EU since there is room for extensions.
(ofcourse the reality is that Boris knows this is impossible and uses it as a convenient way to sneak in a no-deal, bypassing Parliament that has repeatedly stopped him from pushing no-deal through openly)

The EU agreed the timeline and signed it into an international treaty which suggests that they must have thought that it was possible to agree terms within this period. To agree to timetable that you don't believe can be met because there is room for an extension when the other party expressly tells you that they will not extend pat the original deadline seems a bit stupid.

Oh and you're back to your silly conspiracy theory - I think I'll leave it here.

[Mayhem]

It was emphasized.


Herd immunity about 60%, fatality rate is about 1%. The UK and France each has about 67 millions inhabitants.
A rough estimate gives 400,000 deaths per country.

That is the number that we should aim to lower, and the current deaths are not that significant in that perspective.

But as stated before this is not the thread to discuss it.

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.

[Forogil]

The fatality rate is about 7%.

This is not the thread to correct you.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump hasn't announced the US will ban UK flights at all. He announced that the UK may be included in the travel ban - I mean it even says this in the text you've highlighted in bold.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51891662 in case no-one else linked it.

Coronavirus: US to extend travel ban to UK and Ireland
The ban will begin at midnight EST on Monday (04:00 GMT Tuesday