@jamesanders0n.bsky.social
I completely agree that the EU isn't the 'bad guy', and we have little leverage. But the EU traded these talks for fishing rights, and then set an unrealistic barrier for entry. Just because someone is the weaker party doesn't mean they should accept being trampled on....
December 2, 2025 at 1:58 PM
I completely agree that the EU isn't the 'bad guy', and we have little leverage. But the EU traded these talks for fishing rights, and then set an unrealistic barrier for entry. Just because someone is the weaker party doesn't mean they should accept being trampled on....
So the UK population should have spent 6bn to be able to bid for up to potentially 22.5bn in work for Private arms companies, which we would have been lucky to win 2bn of. 6bn in direct cash for 2bn in contracts is a rubbish deal
December 2, 2025 at 12:43 PM
So the UK population should have spent 6bn to be able to bid for up to potentially 22.5bn in work for Private arms companies, which we would have been lucky to win 2bn of. 6bn in direct cash for 2bn in contracts is a rubbish deal
I had a little chuckle here, as the Download Festival's line-up got leaked early using exactly the same technique, polling for images on the site prior to the pages being launched... Assuming someone made quite a bit of money here.
December 1, 2025 at 4:22 PM
I had a little chuckle here, as the Download Festival's line-up got leaked early using exactly the same technique, polling for images on the site prior to the pages being launched... Assuming someone made quite a bit of money here.
The extra 15% is worth 22.5bn, so 10% of that given the UK's relative size is 2.25bn. Paying 2bn to maybe win 2.25bn in contracts is not a good deal.
November 30, 2025 at 11:42 PM
The extra 15% is worth 22.5bn, so 10% of that given the UK's relative size is 2.25bn. Paying 2bn to maybe win 2.25bn in contracts is not a good deal.
So let's play that forward, the EU states it no longer sees the UK as a reliable partner. Why should the UK, or Turkey as another NATO example then continue backing NATO and European defence? Why not just pull back and declare neutrality.
November 30, 2025 at 11:37 PM
So let's play that forward, the EU states it no longer sees the UK as a reliable partner. Why should the UK, or Turkey as another NATO example then continue backing NATO and European defence? Why not just pull back and declare neutrality.
Everyone gets up to 35%, it's not unique to the UK.... You didn't answer my question, would you be be happy if Labour signed up to the deal to enrich UK arms companies with our tax money?
November 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM
Everyone gets up to 35%, it's not unique to the UK.... You didn't answer my question, would you be be happy if Labour signed up to the deal to enrich UK arms companies with our tax money?
From a defence perspective the UK is putting Europe 1st, it's a key NATO ally, supporter of Ukraine and has troops on the eastern flank. Being asked to put a disproportionate amount into a fund you can't access (UK wouldn't have access to loans) is the EU putting it's commercial interests first
November 30, 2025 at 10:23 PM
From a defence perspective the UK is putting Europe 1st, it's a key NATO ally, supporter of Ukraine and has troops on the eastern flank. Being asked to put a disproportionate amount into a fund you can't access (UK wouldn't have access to loans) is the EU putting it's commercial interests first
It's what someone does who doesn't actually want the deal agreed.
November 30, 2025 at 10:05 PM
It's what someone does who doesn't actually want the deal agreed.
I very much do understand the deal as I am involved in significant procurement deals. Asking firms/countries to pay substantial sums for the 'potential' to bid for work is not normal, and never a good deal. It's clearly designed as an ask that they know can't be accepted.
November 30, 2025 at 10:04 PM
I very much do understand the deal as I am involved in significant procurement deals. Asking firms/countries to pay substantial sums for the 'potential' to bid for work is not normal, and never a good deal. It's clearly designed as an ask that they know can't be accepted.
I am not sure I entirely understand your point? The EU should only do what's in its own interests, but the UK needs to put the EU first?
November 30, 2025 at 10:02 PM
I am not sure I entirely understand your point? The EU should only do what's in its own interests, but the UK needs to put the EU first?
According to the FT Article, the UK's offer at the point this broke down was 200m, the EU wanted approx 2bn. so the UK was willing to contribute, but paying 1.25bn+ (Which you have to assume is the minimum the EU would accept) to 'maybe' win extra some defence orders is simply not a good deal.
November 30, 2025 at 10:01 PM
According to the FT Article, the UK's offer at the point this broke down was 200m, the EU wanted approx 2bn. so the UK was willing to contribute, but paying 1.25bn+ (Which you have to assume is the minimum the EU would accept) to 'maybe' win extra some defence orders is simply not a good deal.
So if tomorrow Reeves turned around and said she's going to use between 2bn & 6bn of taxpayers money to allow us to 'maybe' win some orders for UK defence companies, which if you assume we win 10% is 2.25bn, would you be happy?
November 30, 2025 at 9:54 PM
So if tomorrow Reeves turned around and said she's going to use between 2bn & 6bn of taxpayers money to allow us to 'maybe' win some orders for UK defence companies, which if you assume we win 10% is 2.25bn, would you be happy?
The UK is fundamentally being asked to 'pay to play', having to make a significant contribution for the right to bid for work. Just from a commercial perspective that's never a good deal, the UK was never going to sign this, as the EU would never sign something with say the US on the same basis
November 30, 2025 at 9:35 PM
The UK is fundamentally being asked to 'pay to play', having to make a significant contribution for the right to bid for work. Just from a commercial perspective that's never a good deal, the UK was never going to sign this, as the EU would never sign something with say the US on the same basis
Or at least look that way from the UK. The experience of negotiating isn't unique to the UK, as the Swiss...
November 30, 2025 at 9:32 PM
Or at least look that way from the UK. The experience of negotiating isn't unique to the UK, as the Swiss...
So the UK gave away substantial fishing rights to be allowed the privilege to negotiate how it might contribute to EU defence.... Surely you can see that some of these discussions are clearly lopsided?
November 30, 2025 at 9:32 PM
So the UK gave away substantial fishing rights to be allowed the privilege to negotiate how it might contribute to EU defence.... Surely you can see that some of these discussions are clearly lopsided?
If the EU paid the UK 6bn EUR to win perhaps 2.25bn in arms contracts would you be happy for that deal?
November 30, 2025 at 9:31 PM
If the EU paid the UK 6bn EUR to win perhaps 2.25bn in arms contracts would you be happy for that deal?
From the 2.25bn, much of that would not cycle back to the UK Gov, and we clearly don't end up with any actual arms. So 6bn to maybe get 2.25bn in contracts, is not a deal anyone is signing up to.
November 30, 2025 at 9:30 PM
From the 2.25bn, much of that would not cycle back to the UK Gov, and we clearly don't end up with any actual arms. So 6bn to maybe get 2.25bn in contracts, is not a deal anyone is signing up to.
But what's on offer was not the same as Horizon. The UK would be contributing to the potential, but with no ability to actually request loans, and a vague promise that some of the 6bn could be spent on UK arms. If only 10% actually reached the UK, we would have contributed 6bn for 2.25bn in spend.
November 30, 2025 at 9:29 PM
But what's on offer was not the same as Horizon. The UK would be contributing to the potential, but with no ability to actually request loans, and a vague promise that some of the 6bn could be spent on UK arms. If only 10% actually reached the UK, we would have contributed 6bn for 2.25bn in spend.
In your own words the deal was sold as fish for access to defence contracts, not fish+6bn. bsky.app/profile/elen.... The UK is making a mess of things, but it's hard to see the EU approach regarding the UK as an attempt to extract every last drop...
If it is mostly UvL from the EU that is pushing this reset, it does not bode well for the future.
The deal is basically a defence-for-fish agreement and a lot of promises to negotiate things in the future. Without serious engagement by UK not much can be expected.
The deal is basically a defence-for-fish agreement and a lot of promises to negotiate things in the future. Without serious engagement by UK not much can be expected.
November 30, 2025 at 7:30 PM
In your own words the deal was sold as fish for access to defence contracts, not fish+6bn. bsky.app/profile/elen.... The UK is making a mess of things, but it's hard to see the EU approach regarding the UK as an attempt to extract every last drop...
I would genuinely like to understand, which initially was asking for 6bn for the UK to be allowed the potential for 'perhaps' an extra 15% of business (Worth up to 22.5bn), with no guarantee we wouldn't pay the money and see no additional contracts. It's not an offer designed to be accepted.
November 30, 2025 at 7:25 PM
I would genuinely like to understand, which initially was asking for 6bn for the UK to be allowed the potential for 'perhaps' an extra 15% of business (Worth up to 22.5bn), with no guarantee we wouldn't pay the money and see no additional contracts. It's not an offer designed to be accepted.
How's the election going to happen if we are all fighting the civil war you're so excitedly agitating for...
November 9, 2025 at 12:37 AM
How's the election going to happen if we are all fighting the civil war you're so excitedly agitating for...
I can't see how we can be expected to proceed with the fish deal, which was essentially sold as a trade-off for SPS, if France (The country that most benefits from fishing UK waters) then refuses the rest. But is it possible, or have we already signed this?
November 8, 2025 at 10:58 PM
I can't see how we can be expected to proceed with the fish deal, which was essentially sold as a trade-off for SPS, if France (The country that most benefits from fishing UK waters) then refuses the rest. But is it possible, or have we already signed this?
Did you read the article at all before writing that comment, because you appear to have completely missed the point...
November 8, 2025 at 10:57 PM
Did you read the article at all before writing that comment, because you appear to have completely missed the point...
I suspect the treasury are saying we can't afford it, and they have gone into negotiations asking for a change to the balancing payments to reflect this disparity. That's what happens in normal negotiations. I wonder if an option is to cap the scheme on a 1:1 basis in terms of flows
November 8, 2025 at 6:58 PM
I suspect the treasury are saying we can't afford it, and they have gone into negotiations asking for a change to the balancing payments to reflect this disparity. That's what happens in normal negotiations. I wonder if an option is to cap the scheme on a 1:1 basis in terms of flows
Without knowing details it's hard to comment, but the fact that approx 2 students came to the UK for each student that went abroad creates a significant balancing payment for the UK. Additionally the demand for students to pay local fees (Which are currently loss making) means UK Gov subsidies.
November 8, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Without knowing details it's hard to comment, but the fact that approx 2 students came to the UK for each student that went abroad creates a significant balancing payment for the UK. Additionally the demand for students to pay local fees (Which are currently loss making) means UK Gov subsidies.