Forum Topic

Agreement from both sides

Below has the links to the UK & EU publications of the deal.It should be noted that this agreement does not cover Gibraltar. You may recall many years ago now that the referendum was for the UK and Gibraltar. I'm not saying that it is negative or positive just highlighting the facts. I'm not sure how may people take their pets to Europe for example - but in Gibraltar there seems to be a flow of dogs both ways with it being a short land border.  Here is the link to the UK gov webpagehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agreements-reached-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-european-unionHere is the EU linkhttps://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/future-partnership/draft-agreement_enThis link is useful looking at personal impact:https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/867615/EU_Membership_benefits_two_columns.pdf

Ed Robinson ● 2144d33 Comments

Thank you for the links, very helpful.It is also interesting to note that the agreement does not cover any of the British dependent territories, which of course, includes the Falkland Islands. The latter may sound far fetched, but it is true that the waters around the Falkland Islands are mainly exploited by the Chinese and Japanese, a few European fishing vessels are known to travel down south too.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2143d

Ivonne, I haven't read the fishing parts. The Falklands were never in the EU I would be surprised to see any mention but it is sometimes easy to forget the complexities of the UK and dependencies. It seems without protection fishing stocks and fishing beds get plundered world wide. I recall this being a particular issue when states fail and their waters become an international free for all throwing many local fishermen and economies out of their livelihoods.Gibraltar was in the EU so they exit at the end of the month. But they weren't in a customs union. Interesting that the agreement on pet travel (not as good as pet passport) does include UK dependencies. The significant part I guess is no need for rabies vacine although letter within 10 days from vet required.Roaming phone charges may be of interest assuming we can roam next year. I received a number of messages ealier this month from a couple of the UK operators tempting me to extend contracts. It could be coincidence but I would advice people to look at any additional roaming costs before renewing. EU Roaming using our existing UK packages has not been arounf6that long but it has made a big change.

Ed Robinson ● 2143d

Thanks, Ed.I must admit reading this gets stiff competition from the Private Eye Annual 2020 and a walk on Putney Heath on a fine fine Sunday, but I found the following paragraphs interesting:184. The UK, Gibraltar and Spain will continue to negotiate arrangements to
seek the best possible outcome for the people of Gibraltar and the
surrounding region. The Commission have confirmed that a separate UK-EU
agreement on Gibraltar is possible and that they stand ready to examine any
request from Spain and the UK to take this forward.
185. The Agreement between the UK and the EU includes arrangements
relating to the trade in goods between the Crown Dependencies and the EU
and sets out provisions for mutual fisheries access.Obviously, we can expect further wrangling over Gibraltar - can Kent give them consultancy on managing queues at borders? Interesting that the UK government is determining Crown Dependecy relations in this area. The general opinion seems to be this agreement is no where near the end of negations, sounds like just a peg in the ground? See how it goes for four years, review, then more discussions? Just a guess ...Still, we can still use our UK driving licences in the EU and we get the GHIC to replace the EHIC, although seems slightly constrained; interesting that Erasmus is good enough for NI but not the rest of the UK - on person I spoke to yesterday who's retired from the academics world thought there could be protests over that from some institutions ...

Michael Ixer ● 2143d

Michael I will have to dig into the fishing part which look fishy.This from the BBC in November "The UK government has received approval from the House of Lords to negotiate over fishing rights in Crown dependency waters without their consent."Another constitutional mess. The blurr between self determination and UK absolute right in determining their future doesn't seem clear to me.

Ed Robinson ● 2143d

The fishing view seems to be that it was a sell out:"What @BorisJohnson secured (see jpgs) is pathetic in comparison. He's basically rolled over the status quo."https://ffl.org.uk/3473-2/

Ed Robinson ● 2142d

Sue Hammond 24/12Your company will no longer be constrained by EU rules and regulations, try and be positive for a change. Michael Gove 28/12British business must get “match fit” in order to overcome all the new red tape coming into force as the UK leaves the customs unionSounds great.

Matt Palmer ● 2142d

Interesting reading who abstained or voted against a customs union during the indicative votes:SNP all abstained.Justine Greening abstained.Greens abstained.Liberals abstained."It would have passed had the anti-Brexit Independent Group or the Liberal Democrats backed it. However, both groups again refused to support any form of soft Brexit. Mr Clarke was quick to blame them, and the Scottish National party, whose 35 MPs abstained"https://ig.ft.com/brexit-second-round-indicative-votes/

Ed Robinson ● 2142d

Correction to above: Caroline Lucas voted against a customs union.David Lammy abstained as did Wes Streeting. I assume both of these will vote for the Johnson deal!

Ed Robinson ● 2142d

Matt, yes, just lots more bureaucracy for companies trading with our closest partner. Services, a major part of our economy unlike fishing, still looks like work in progress. It seems appalling that the deal was completed and businesses given only three working days to review and implement it before it comes into effect on Friday 1st January. Large organisations with a team of lawyers might be able to cope with that but what about SMEs and sole traders without any legal expertise and a business to run? Where's the free legal help, easy to understand guidance and time to adjust to the new rules? Still, it was Johnson who said F-business: he just has!

Michael Ixer ● 2142d

A distraction if one's fed up with reading trade agreements ...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/27/a-brief-history-of-brexit-all-2000-years-of-it

Michael Ixer ● 2142d

Not all business Michael.NY bankers and lawyers seem to be very happy with the deal!

Ed Robinson ● 2142d

Yes, Ed. Most banks have already transferred operations needed of EU business to the EU zone. It's more UK (and EU) SMEs that will experience difficulties. There will be opportunities outside of the EU but it will take time to establish those; with businesses already suffering from losses caused by Covid disruptions many may struggle to cope with cash flow deficits while they readjust and may not have the resources or expertise for additional bureaucracy and new trading conditions. 

Michael Ixer ● 2142d

If the Remainers had accepted the democratic referendum most of the problems could have been sorted in plenty of time and with cooperation. As it is Remainers are still whinging, yet they talk of democratic decisions.;  Hypocrites.  ( not all )

Barbara Shillabeer ● 2141d

Hi Barbara I'm a Remainer and I voted as such in the 2016 referendum. I am still a Remainer today, however I'm curious to know how I can be blamed for, or have contributed to, any of the problems? As much as I didn't want to accept the result, I can't see how that would have changed anything. I'm not an MP, so I didn't get a vote of any of the proposed bills and amendments for the Withdrawal Agreement. I'm not on the Brexit Negotiating Team, so I had no influence on the Deal. I'm not a member of the Government in any capacity, so I have no input into policies. Was there some kind of second referendum that I missed where the general public got to vote on how much of a mess they wanted the last four years to be?

Carl Broadley ● 2141d

Hear hear Carl. This deal is apparently worse than the one May negotiated!

Lucille Grant ● 2141d

May did not negotiate a deal on trade.She negotiated a withdrawal agreement .Two completely different things

Andy Pike ● 2141d

Exactly Andy.  Thank gawd May didn't get that far, she couldn't deal a hand of cards,

Sue Hammond ● 2141d

One wonders what other b*ll*cks lurks in the deal!  (And it does reference these ☺Obviously spent too much time talking about fish.)https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55475433Interesting that they try and go into this level of detail in this section but some stuff just seems genereric. I supplies that's where they're going to set up one of the many committees for further discussions that can be jobs for their friends?

Michael Ixer ● 2141d

"she couldn't deal a hand of cards"Makes you wonder how she was Home Secretary for so long.When you look back at great reforms that previous (not all) Home Secretaries have made on both sides of the house, you begin to wonder what May actually did all those years!

Ed Robinson ● 2141d

Sorry Andy but I think you're wrong, according to this (May's final attempt at a deal before resigning)https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/theresa-may-brexit-deal-final-offerIt covers many issues, including the Irish border backstop, workers' rights, customs  compromise etc etc.I am no fan of May btw but being governed by a group of MPs/ Hooray Henry Eton boys looking after their own interests is no better than anything May ever tried to do. As for the worst of Home Secretaries, I give  you Priti Patel for starters.

Lucille Grant ● 2141d

Michael that is from Trade and Cooperation Agreement (including Annexes and Protocols).Which in most cases will be a copy and paste from previous agreements hence the old examples.The tricky thing will be to look for omissions and any changes.In this case it is probably a copy from here (2008):https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L:2008:210:FULL&from=FRIII Acts adopted under the EU TreatyACTS ADOPTED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE EU TREATY

Ed Robinson ● 2141d

Ed, I realise it's obviously a copy and paste from an old document. I'm just surprised that such old text would be copied into a high profile agreement. Reading the text it's not material but in my opinion just shoddy. It just makes one wonder what else has inadvertently crept and, yes, I'd agree that looking for omissions and changes (particularly small ones) is more difficult. I've seen worse copied into a document - like a document that inadvertently said the senior managers of the NatWest Bank would be invited to the progress meetings of a Barclays Bank Project ... fortunately that one got spotted before it went into the post ...

Michael Ixer ● 2141d

I think you will find that is the withdrawal agreement on the Irish backstop it talks about how it would come into force if no trade deal was achieved.It's similar how people misrepresent the Boris statement re an oven ready deal. That too was the withdrawal agreement and not a trade deal. But it serves those peoples purpose to misrepresent.

Andy Pike ● 2141d

Hello Andy,We all know that TM's Agreement referred to the Withdrawal Agreement as it was the first official document produced.  The problem was that it contained clauses that followed the ATAD - that was the main problem for the ERG.Boris' statement about the oven-ready deal has not been misrepresented by people but his words had an "oven-ready deal" which would be "the easiest deal in the world".  "We will have a deal that would mirror [my words not BJ's] full membership".  No, people did not misrepresent, BJ was highly flamboyant and very much his usual self - meaning he sold hot air.Please, do tell me where in the manifesto or in any of BJ's appearances, did he mention the "oven-ready deal" referred to the withdrawal agreement.  That confirmation came a long time after the election had been won.Also, did I understand it correctly that the Internal Market Bill would break in a small and measured way the Withdrawal Agreement BJ had signed a few months before?Changes like a weather vane by any chance?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2141d

I'll leave you to believe what you believe. And I will do the same. It's actually irrelevant now anyway.

Andy Pike ● 2141d

Wise words!!!But irrelevant, I doubt it.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2141d

Personally I take the view that Johnson has such a lack of attention to detail that it's ambiguous which deal he was talking about because he wasn't clear himself. He probably didn't care as he was just selling a myth, like the stories written on the side of a bus - or the Garden Bridge, the new - now obsolete - Routemaster bus, etc. Now reality has caught up with him it's necessary to retrospectively try and clarify what he meant ...  

Michael Ixer ● 2141d

Michael, it may seem logical to amend the text but one imagines that any deviation - however slight from the previous agreements might have unintended consequences. Not my field just logical assumptions on my part.Or of course the other explanation is that the lawyers are being paid by the word :)

Ed Robinson ● 2141d

Hi Ed, Ironically, in terms of computer security, following the text would actually have unintended consequences. The wording "shall be applied" is used for two cryptographic (encryption) standards which are no longer considered secure. If an organisation were to follow the wording to the letter, they would put themselves at a higher risk compared to using today's standards.

Carl Broadley ● 2140d

It is very odd Carl, one would assume the current EU legislation would have had either updates or just generic reference to the agreed latest standards. It's almost as if the EU legislation has been written as a point in time requirement and not something that is on going.Having said that it does show how much attention we pay to EU legislation if this has been there since 2008.It  would be interesting to get a legal perspective on this.

Ed Robinson ● 2140d

Ed. I can't give a legal view on this but can only comment that from a technical perspective I've advised lawyers not to write specific technical details into a policy or agreement as they could be overturned at a stroke if a vulnerability is found. For example,  I think on one occasion we agree to insert a clause such  as "the largest guidance from OWASP will be applied" but in practice one would need to write in the level of detail required for a particular context and taking regard of the review period. And a high level the GDPR uses terms like "appropriate technical and operational measures" which aren't specific but can be advised on if needed by an expert in a court of law. If copying and pasting it's worth checking what's in the text one's transferring. 

Michael Ixer ● 2140d

Michael, it is interesting that the focus has been on the paste and not the copy. Presumably if we never left no one would have ever noticed.I'm coming around to the opinion that the lawyers past and present must have been paid by the word. It looks like it has more stuffing than our turkey this year!

Ed Robinson ● 2140d

Ed, yes, and EU agreements are being breached by those using more up-to-date technology? ☺ I wouldn't be too harsh on lawyers, some just don't understand IT but I've worked with some who are very knowledgeable on the subject, plus I've some good friends who are lawyers! I just have to be careful when making jokes about lawyers ...

Michael Ixer ● 2140d