BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

C R

Veteran
It's clearly better to have a deal with India than not. It includes aerospace, which is a bonus given they've just started a war. But if the metric is a comparison to what would have been, it is likely to be a temporary lead.

The reason the single market is relevant, is because if you do a deal with the EU, it covers 27 countries, instead of 27 negotiations.

Amazeballs.

Also, you can't negotiate separately vis. tariffs, regulatory standards etc.

Drat.

Facts, we know them and we don't like them. They are the reason we can't have unicorns.
 

First Aspect

Regular
Populism is strapping a carrot to a donkeys head and calling it a unicorn.
 

Dorset Boy

Regular
You sound like Kemi. Remind me what the trade deal was the last Government negotiated with India. Presumably it was far superior?
Given they have been negotiating for the last 3 years, then the previous Government had as much, or more, to do with getting this deal as the current Government.....
 

PurplePenguin

New Member
The fundamental mistake of Brexiteers was thinking that we can do better deals than a much larger trade bloc with more to offer. All we can do is get there a bit quicker.

I think, unless I am mistaken, all the UK trade deals have improved or matched the EU ones with the exception of the Canadian one. It's reasonable to assume that the UK would be able to get a better deal for the UK in less time; however, the key point of dispute is whether this compensates for the increased friction in trade with the EU. And on that point, I think most people would conclude it doesn't.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Well-Known Member
I think, unless I am mistaken, all the UK trade deals have improved or matched the EU ones with the exception of the Canadian one. It's reasonable to assume that the UK would be able to get a better deal for the UK in less time; however, the key point of dispute is whether this compensates for the increased friction in trade with the EU. And on that point, I think most people would conclude it doesn't.

The Oz one certainly isn't: that was just a giveaway for (effectively) nothing in return (certainly for agriculture), and reflected the desperation to sign anything post-Brexit that called itself a trade deal. And peanuts, in relative terms in any case.
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
The Oz one certainly isn't: that was just a giveaway for (effectively) nothing in return (certainly for agriculture), and reflected the desperation to sign anything post-Brexit that called itself a trade deal. And peanuts, in relative terms in any case.

But will these deals open up the pork markets?
 

PurplePenguin

New Member
The Oz one certainly isn't: that was just a giveaway for (effectively) nothing in return (certainly for agriculture), and reflected the desperation to sign anything post-Brexit that called itself a trade deal. And peanuts, in relative terms in any case.

EU is still negotiating its trade deal with Australia, so it's hard to say that the UK's agreement is worse than something that doesn't exist.
 

Stevo 666

Active Member
It's clearly better to have a deal with India than not. It includes aerospace, which is a bonus given they've just started a war. But if the metric is a comparison to what would have been, it is likely to be a temporary lead.

The reason the single market is relevant, is because if you do a deal with the EU, it covers 27 countries, instead of 27 negotiations.

Amazeballs.

Also, you can't negotiate separately vis. tariffs, regulatory standards etc.

Drat.

Re your first sentence, it's worth noting that the EU doesn't have a trade deal with India. So reasonable to assume that if we were still in the EU, we wouldn't have one either.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom