There have been some provisional trade deals with other nations agreed but not anything like enough effort put into it. Partly because the government has been shot in the foot by offering free trade on the British side regardless which as some other countries have responded "why should we give you access to our markets when your already giving us full access without any parallel on our part?" Partly I think because May's heart wasn't in leaving so her government didn't put a massive effort into it.
Such deals have nothing to do with either Parliament as their negotiated government by government, nor with the EU so I don't think your understanding things there. I'm not talking about deals being signed as some amendment to an EU deal and don't think anyone else is. I'm talking about trade deals between countries such as the US, Canada, Japan, whoever.
What I said here is that to me the obvious 1st step is the UK trades on terms X as part of the EU. Hence lets use that as a basis with tweaking for both parties depending on what interests they have. I suspect concessions would have to be made in some cases as the UK isn't as big a market as the entire EU but its the basis for starting.
I think from your last paragraph your confused this with a deal with the EU. That hasn't happened because the EU had been deceiving people on the relations with the Irish Republic - as other people have said. See comments by @La_Niolue and @Dasneko for instance. As such their argued for huge concessions from the UK, including Britain effectively staying inside the EU, although without any say on any matter, for as long as the EU wishes. Rightly that has been rejected by even this Parliament and the EU have balked at any other agreement, while continuing to pretend that there is a solution they would accept.
That is the reason why they unilaterally extended the deadline on Britain leaving. They were still hoping such a deal would be forced through Parliament. Possibly also why if the remainers get their way as it looks and Britain is forced to ask for a 2nd extension because they [the remainers] won't accept Britain to leave or allow a general election to give the British people a say on the issue until they get a further extension.
Johnson is an idiot and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw the rock of Gibraltar but the problem isn't because of his believes as it dates from before he became PM. An hard exit would mean a dealless exit from the EU simply because Britain [rightly] wouldn't surrender so much sovereignty [which would make leaving the EU a fake] as the EU are demanding and they won't consider anything else. But as I say that's a totally different thing from what I was talking about by a trade deal.
60
@Kemm
There have been some provisional trade deals with other nations agreed but not anything like enough effort put into it. Partly because the government has been shot in the foot by offering free trade on the British side regardless which as some other countries have responded "why should we give you access to our markets when your already giving us full access without any parallel on our part?" Partly I think because May's heart wasn't in leaving so her government didn't put a massive effort into it.
Such deals have nothing to do with either Parliament as their negotiated government by government, nor with the EU so I don't think your understanding things there. I'm not talking about deals being signed as some amendment to an EU deal and don't think anyone else is. I'm talking about trade deals between countries such as the US, Canada, Japan, whoever.
What I said here is that to me the obvious 1st step is the UK trades on terms X as part of the EU. Hence lets use that as a basis with tweaking for both parties depending on what interests they have. I suspect concessions would have to be made in some cases as the UK isn't as big a market as the entire EU but its the basis for starting.
I think from your last paragraph your confused this with a deal with the EU. That hasn't happened because the EU had been deceiving people on the relations with the Irish Republic - as other people have said. See comments by @La_Niolue and @Dasneko for instance. As such their argued for huge concessions from the UK, including Britain effectively staying inside the EU, although without any say on any matter, for as long as the EU wishes. Rightly that has been rejected by even this Parliament and the EU have balked at any other agreement, while continuing to pretend that there is a solution they would accept.
That is the reason why they unilaterally extended the deadline on Britain leaving. They were still hoping such a deal would be forced through Parliament. Possibly also why if the remainers get their way as it looks and Britain is forced to ask for a 2nd extension because they [the remainers] won't accept Britain to leave or allow a general election to give the British people a say on the issue until they get a further extension.
Johnson is an idiot and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw the rock of Gibraltar but the problem isn't because of his believes as it dates from before he became PM. An hard exit would mean a dealless exit from the EU simply because Britain [rightly] wouldn't surrender so much sovereignty [which would make leaving the EU a fake] as the EU are demanding and they won't consider anything else. But as I say that's a totally different thing from what I was talking about by a trade deal.