Brexit discussion thread IV

Sheeps wrote: »

In fairness, she did have to call that election. She wasn't elected and a government needs a mandate, specially so for navigating through the storm of Brexit.

I agree that she's a terrible leader and a terrible negotiator, yet I still think she has earned and deserves a lot of respect for stepping up to arguably the toughest job in politics right now. None of the Brexit leaders would.

Nody wrote: »

Honestly it's so dripped in faery dust and unicorn blood I wonder if the author was either a) high on LSD/cocaine or b) has not read any discussions or comments from EU for the last three years because pretty much every single point has already been thrown out by EU to date (exception being one around internal lines in UK which EU don't care about).

3.3.5. Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA)

The new Association Agreements that came into force in 2016 with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are characterised by their comprehensive political and economic content, and inclusion of DCFTAs, which could lead to a high degree of inclusion in the single market for three of the four freedoms (free movement of goods, service and capital, but not people). The exclusion of free movement of people is because of concern in the EU over the prospect of large flows of immigrants. The EU’s doctrine that all four freedoms are an indivisible package is thus applied to the EU itself and the EEA, but not between the EU and other close neighbours, or FTAs with the rest of the world.
These Agreements set out in legally precise terms the entire agenda for defining the relationship with the EU, sector by sector, for virtually all EU competences. The structure of chapters is more or less the same as that used in many of the EU’s other association or partnership agreements with third countries, but the key issue is how far these chapters entail legally binding provisions and compliance with the EU acquis. The DCFTAs entail a high degree of compliance with EU acquis, and thus are a category apart from the most advanced agreements with non-European countries such as the CETA with Canada. The DCFTA is asymmetric in privileging EU law, whereas the CETA is strictly symmetric with reference to each party’s laws. As a result the DCFTA, when fully implemented after transitional arrangements (that would in any case be irrelevant in the UK context), can assure a very high degree of access to the EU single market, close to the EEA case at least for trade in goods, but not for the movement of people or services. The coverage of EU law is very extensive (see Annex A), but not quite as complete as for the EEA. For some service sectors the DCFTA offers the possibility of ‘full internal market treatment’, conditional on full compliance with the EU acquis, notably for financial services and telecommunications. The dispute settlement mechanisms lean on WTO practice, with less total reliance on the European Court of Justice than in the EEA case.There is no general contribution to the EU budget by the partner state, except for participation in specific agencies and programmes. On the contrary the EU is making substantial grant and loan aid to its DCFTA partners, whereas for the UK the EU is expected to request a general budget contribution as condition for preferential market access.
The Association Agreement also includes several other chapters that would be of great importance for the UK, including participation in the Horizon 2020 programme for scientific research, the Erasmus+ programme for cooperation in higher education, the European Defence Agency, Europol, etc. (see Annex 10).

briany wrote: »

Exactly how much stroke do the DUP have to block such a deal? Their devolved government isn't sitting at the moment, and if you put the deal to the commons and it garners significant cross-party support, does it matter what the DUP thinks?

Jim2007 wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Turkey doesn't get to develop an independent trade policy in most areas so the UK , must get lesser access.
So it's Canada.

You are missing the point! It is not something the EU can decide, it is a WTO requirement. The only way you can have a trade deal with better terms than most favored nation is to enter into a customs union, this is what Turkey did. It can’t have a separate policy because the block trades as a single unit with the senior partner being responsible for trade negotiations etc...

Even if the EU were to agree to this nonsense, it hard to see how WTO members would agree to it. It would mean the UK would enjoy all the benefits of a CU while having an independent trade policy and at the same time avoiding the requirement to grant other members most favored nation status in it’s agreement with the EU. Cakeism on a new level.

1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally
Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

This principle is known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment (see box). It is so important that it is the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled by the WTO.

Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group — discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong.

Strazdas wrote: »

It would mean somehow agreeing to abide by the rules of the Single Market without actually being a member of the Single Market or to be under its rules.

It's a load of nonsense of course. You can't 'agree to follow' the rules of something but at the same time refuse to sign up to them. You're either bound by the rules or you are not, there's no halfway house.

In many ways the best outcome of today would be the hard Brexiteers walking out of government because that might mean that there is then a glimmer of hope that common sense starts to prevail.

Probably the worst outcome of today is if they all emerge from Chequers at 11 o’clock tonight, arm in arm, saying they’ve agreed, because that means there’s another helping of fudge being served up.

What’s being put forward is likely to be rejected by Europe and we are no closer to a common sense realistic position and time is running out, so that becomes more and more serious.

Water John wrote: »

Who is going to negotiate with Barnier if Davis doesn't believe in it? He has lost any authority he had since he himself doesn't believe in it, even if he didn't resign.