[Atlantis]

It's come to what it always had to come to. There are still fundamental differences between the EU and the UK just days before the UK is crashing out off the transition period to face customs barriers to its most important export market.

Even if there were an agreement, it's now virtually impossible to get approval from 28 governments in addition to the EU commission and ratification by nearly 30 different parliaments.

Reverting to WTO terms is detrimental to both sides. That's why Johnson played Russian roulette with the UK economy in the belief that the EU will cave in in the last minute. But to the EU the integrity of the common market is more important than a trade deal with the UK.

Nobody trusts Johnson at this point. He has demonstrated that he is willing to violate the agreements entered into by the UK. The UK negotiated in bad faith by first pretending to aspire to a close frictionless trade relationship and by then turning around by rejecting the regulatory agreements necessary for such a close relationship. He wants to eat his cake and have it too. The recent vaccine fiasco shows that his government is willing to screw the EU (and everybody else) even about totally insignificant issues for a symbolic political coup. His manners may be more refined, but at heart he's the true successor of Donald Trump.

My bet is on a no-deal Brexit accompanied by a series of mini-deals regulating different sectors so as to prevent chaos in the relations between the UK and the single market. These mini-deals can be cancelled unilaterally whenever one party feels that they are no longer necessary or that the other side is cheating.

Post-Brexit trade talks paused amid 'significant divergences'

Talks to reach a post-Brexit trade deal have been paused, because UK and EU negotiators say "significant divergences" remain.

Michel Barnier and David Frost said conditions for a deal between the two sides have not been met.

European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen and PM Boris Johnson will discuss the situation on Saturday.

State aid subsidies, fishing and enforcement of new rules remain the key sticking points in negotiations.

If a deal is not agreed by 31 December, the two sides will trade on World Trade Organization rules, meaning the introduction of taxes on imports.

Releasing identical statements on Twitter, Mr Barnier and Lord Frost said: "After one week of intense negotiation in London, the two chief negotiators agreed today that the conditions for an agreement are not met, due to significant divergences on level playing field, governance and fisheries.

"On this basis, they agreed to pause the talks in order to brief their principals on the state of play of the negotiations."

A senior UK government source told BBC News the statement shows how far apart both sides are and that the trade talks have run into problems.

Earlier, Boris Johnson's spokesman said the government was "committed to working hard to try and reach agreement" but emphasised that the UK couldn't "agree a deal that doesn't allow us to take back control".

He added that "time is in very short supply and we are at a very difficult point in talks".

The Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin said it was important for the 27 EU member states to give negotiators "the space to conclude these talks". He added that he "fervently hoped" a trade deal can be agreed.

Meanwhile, France's Europe minister, Clement Beaune, warned that his country could "veto" a deal if it did not satisfy their demands.

The European Parliament would need to ratify any deal before it can be implemented and UK MPs are likely to get the chance to vote on legislation implementing the agreement.

And the 27 EU national parliaments could also need to ratify an agreement - depending on the actual contents of the deal.

[B0ycey]

It's come to what it always had to come to.

Squaring the round peg. It's been said on here since I have been around that no deal was the only outcome by just observing the red lines. It was a miracle 98% was agreed actually. And if you predict mini deals, well that is still optimistic.

[Unthinking Majority]

Squaring the round peg. It's been said on here since I have been around that no deal was the only outcome by just observing the red lines. It was a miracle 98% was agreed actually. And if you predict mini deals, well that is still optimistic.

Amazing how much easier it seemed to get into the EU then get out. Neoliberalism owns Europe, bought and paid for.

[Rancid]

Question, could the UK rejoin the EU, and if so, would it be under less favorable terms? If yes, why? Just to spite them, or just circumstance?

[B0ycey]

Amazing how much easier it seemed to get into the EU then get out. Neoliberalism owns Europe, bought and paid for.

We are already out. The issue is both sides want a deal and won't compromise on their red lines. So as the red lines are more important than the deal, there is no deal. Perhaps it would be more wise to just accept whatever this 98% is and move on now. Because Covid has already fucked up the economy so in reality Brexit won't have the impact it would have had a year ago because the industries that relied on a deal the most will be lucky to survive in five years anyway regardless what happens this coming week. And tariffs is something that effects the consumer and perhaps that is a habit we need to get rid of anyway. So whilst I would rather stay in the EU or indeed have a deal, this is becoming a farce now and France would have vetoed it anyway had Fishing been compromised.

[B0ycey]

Question, could the UK rejoin the EU, and if so, would it be under less favorable terms? If yes, why? Just to spite them, or just circumstance?

Well they could but it will be unfavourable because they will loose their opt-outs and rebate. But in time, with the rise of China, the UK will be forced to unite in Europe anyway. Not to mention Brexit is an age divide.

[Atlantis]

Question, could the UK rejoin the EU, and if so, would it be under less favorable terms? If yes, why? Just to spite them, or just circumstance?

The UK or any of its constituent parts is free to rejoin the EU at any time if it fulfills membership criteria, which is likely. It's also likely that the UK wouldn't get the opt-outs it enjoyed previously. But each new member has to be approved by each and every one of the existing members. Thus, some current members may use the membership talks to get concessions from the UK.

[Atlantis]

Amazing how much easier it seemed to get into the EU then get out. Neoliberalism owns Europe, bought and paid for.

Absolutely not.

You have no idea how hard it is to get into the EU. Turkey has tried without success for nearly 50 years.

By contrast, you can get out any time by signing a short letter under Article 50. What you can't do is to leave the EU and still keep all the benefits of membership. That's what Johnson aims for when he talks about "eating our cake and having it too."

[Rancid]

Thus, some current members may use the membership talks to get concessions from the UK.

aahhh, interesting. However, this doesn't make sense though. Do the EU rules allow for separate side deals on stuff between member nations?

[Atlantis]

aahhh, interesting. However, this doesn't make sense though. Do the EU rules allow for separate side deals on stuff between member nations?

No, there are no side deals. But since each existing member has a veto it can use it as leverage to get something from the EU or from whoever wants to join.

Currently Hungary and Poland are vetoing the EU budget and pandemic relief fund to prevent a "rule of law provision" from being linked to EU subsidies.

[Unthinking Majority]

Absolutely not.

You have no idea how hard it is to get into the EU. Turkey has tried without success for nearly 50 years.

Turkey is the rectum of Europe. The EU would be insane to let them in.

The further south and east you go the more Europe becomes trash.

By contrast, you can get out any time by signing a short letter under Article 50. What you can't do is to leave the EU and still keep all the benefits of membership. That's what Johnson aims for when he talks about "eating our cake and having it too."

Britain wants the free trade without selling its soul. The EU isn't a trade union. That's its first problem.

Burn baby burn.

[Rugoz]

"on the verge of collapse", yawn.

[Atlantis]

Britain wants the free trade without selling its soul.

Britain wants to eat its cake and have it too. That is an infantile fantasy not very becoming in adults.

If you cancel your membership in your golf club and stop paying membership fees, you can't expect to keep your membership privilege.

Burn baby burn.

Don't be so unkind on the Brits. They are already burning their own economy. You don't have to wish them ill on top of that.

[Unthinking Majority]

Britain wants to eat its cake and have it too. That is an infantile fantasy not very becoming in adults.

If you cancel your membership in your golf club and stop paying membership fees, you can't expect to keep your membership privilege.

Britain is a sovereign country able to make deals with any group of countries or individual countries the all parties see as mutually beneficial. These things take time and negotiations.

The infantile fantasy is to assume Britain needs to be attached to the EU mother's nipple to do well and be told how to make its way in the world, and to have foreigners across the globe wagging their fingers telling Brits what's good for Brits. This isn't very becoming of adults.

Don't be so unkind on the Brits. They are already burning their own economy. You don't have to wish them ill on top of that.

All divorces cost some money at the outset, and to pay for the lawyers etc to figure out how to manage the split, but people still go through with it because it the longterm they believe they will be better off.

The people who disagree with Brexit are people who want to control Brits and take their sovereignty away, which ironically just reinforces the whole point of it.

[B0ycey]

From what I am reading, the hurdle is ten years of fishing rights in UK waters. Which is ironic given the low yield of GDP for this issue in particular. The length or time perhaps can be negotiated down, but given that we were given a transition period for goods, some form of transition here would be sensible in any case.

Again redlines before compromise it seems. Perhaps No Deal is the only way to refocus what is importance for both sides because when Calais and Dover become a car park, something tells me those who scream about fish today will sing a different tune come February.

[Rugoz]

Nobody is ultimately going to tank a deal because of stupid fish.

[Atlantis]

The fish issue has symbolic values to the Brits and French, but the real issue is the requirement of a regulatory level playing field in exchange for single market access. I don't believe anybody trusts whatever Johnson promises or even signs at this point. The only way for the EU to safeguard from British dumping is by contractual clauses that automatically suspend trade in the case of British violation. It's not for nothing that they have been known as the Perfidious Albion for at least 7 centuries. They won't change now.

[BeesKnee5]

The fishing thing really is a story of UK mismanagement.

The UK government had control of fishing rights, just like every other EU country. They chose to sell them to the highest bidder. Then they allowed the transfer of fishing rights which allowed foreign boat owners to buy up the rights from small UK fishing boats.

So we now have one Dutch ship that's entitled to 23% of UK fish quota.

https://britishseafishing.co.uk/cornelis-vrolijk/

If the UK had licensed the rights and ensured it couldn't be transferred then this argument wouldn't exist and many UK fishing fleets wouldn't have disappeared through short term greed.

[JohnRawls]

To be honest, recently it seems that some members of the EU (YES PROBABLY THE FRENCH) want to torpedo the negotiations. So as soon as UK caves in to our demands, the French just add some more. I think that the plan right now is to make it look like the EU tried but everyone already agreed that there is going to be no deal.

Is it the UKs fault? No, not really. Basically the French or whoever are doing it because they think it to be more prudent and because they can. Is it more prudent? Well, from a Machiavellian standpoint it is the right move that both has illusions of our benevolence from one side and UKs fault from the other. From the other side though, this is inhuman and mostly the UK will suffer because somebody in the EU decided to play Machiavelli.

[Rugoz]

To be honest, recently it seems that some members of the EU (YES PROBABLY THE FRENCH) want to torpedo the negotiations. So as soon as UK caves in to our demands, the French just add some more. I think that the plan right now is to make it look like the EU tried but everyone already agreed that there is going to be no deal.

Is it the UKs fault? No, not really. Basically the French or whoever are doing it because they think it to be more prudent and because they can. Is it more prudent? Well, from a Machiavellian standpoint it is the right move that both has illusions of our benevolence from one side and UKs fault from the other. From the other side though, this is inhuman and mostly the UK will suffer because somebody in the EU decided to play Machiavelli.

France behaves like an ass towards us as well. We much prefer dealing with Germany, Austria or even Italy. If you ask me it's mostly born out of insecurity, e.g.: