Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

The thing is from an Irish point of view and EU point of view that would be great. You would get the deal done very quickly.

However from the UK point of view its far worse than EU membership. The UK would be signing up to everything the EU parliament and commission agree on in add to accepting ECJ rulings. From a business perspective it would be great. But remember the whole point of Brexit was to "take back control". Given that most Brexiters ignored the control and influence the UK had as part of the EU I imagine most will kick up a storm if they were agree to your proposal. As your proposal means the UK losing complete control.

Again from an Irish point of view it would be absolutely fantastic if the UK did agree as it would potentially mean no change in the status quo from an economic perspective. I just don't see your proposal being accepted by the majority of UK MPs as much as I like your idea.

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

I think the only acceptable deal to the EU would be one where the UK signs up to the rules as part of the trade deal. Anything about "agreeing to follow" the rules would suggest that Britain was already planning on acting the eejit in future.

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yeah. Its almost like the EU has already said that a Canada style trade deal is on offer but that its the lowest possible rung available, and the UK has said they want something higher and the EU said "fine, but to get something better you need regulatory allignment" and then the UK said no, no regulatory allignment.

Is that about the size of it?

Well I think what will end up being agreed eventually will be something along the lines of the Canada deal. The precise sectors covered under the agreement will be the subject of negotiations. But it is likely to be a comprehensive free trade deal. It won't be the same as Canada because the trading relationship between the EU and Canada is not the same as between the EU and the UK. What is mutually beneficial in a EU-Canada deal is not the same as what is mutually beneficial in a UK-EU FTA. The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK whereas with Canada it may be some other sector.

Strazdas wrote: »

The main problem will be that the UK is in Europe and will be a former full EU member. The UK cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor of the EU's, located only 20 miles from France. The EU can dictate whatever terms they like in the trade deal and don't have to follow any template.

However the reason for the Canada deal is that it is mutually beneficial despite the EU's larger size. The same will be true for EU-UK. I don't see the UK's proximity having as much of a bearing as you make out. Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

Of course, the precise details of the FTA will be the subject of negotiations over the year. One advantage of these negotiations over others is that the two sides will be, at least at the outset, in regulatory alignment even though there will be divergence over time.

CelticRambler wrote: »

This sounds very much like Brexiters' wishful thinking, and a deep flaw in the FTA logic. What services can the UK provide that cannot be provided by one or more of the remaining 27 member states, or one of the future new members?

In principle, of course, nothing. But then you have to ask yourself what is the point of any trade deal or for that matter trading bloc or customs union? Germany could say that they can, in theory, provide for themselves every thing that France supplies to them. The reason of course is that other countries may already be efficient in producing something so it makes sense to trade with them rather than try to replicate it at home.

CelticRambler wrote: »

That proximity also presents a proportionately greater risk to the EU's SM if the UK defaults on its responsibilities - Exhibit A: the UK's negligence in respect of unlawful Chinese imports.

However this seems to be a fairly widespread problem in the EU not just the UK bit of it. Chinese gangs got it made in Europe

The UK, in their negotiations, will need to ensure that Chinese goods illegally imported into the EU are not subsequently re-exported to the UK.

CelticRambler wrote: »

You'll find that the vast majority of those efficiencies relate to producing something, something tangible. Geography, geology and climate can make it unreasonably costly and impractical to bring production "home". That's where the financial services industry is different: money these days moves through fibre-optic cables from computer to computer. As I've remarked before, we don't need a Singapore-on-Thames because any of use already have easy access to Singapore-just-Singapore if we want it.

As for other services - well, that'll depend on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications as a first step, and require an EU office as a second. While there may indeed be some UK based individuals/companies who provide a superior and/or most cost-effective service than their EU counterparts, how long is that likely to continue? Why trade with a third-country, non-Schengen UK when you could call on an equivalent provider from Switzerland?


Other than the right kind of fish, this key question still remains unanswered: what unique product or service does the UK have to offer that the EU cannot get elsewhere, something that would justify getting a "good" deal?

I suppose we'll have to see what emerges and I think a lot depends the extent to which European countries have already replaced UK services with their own or the extent to which, say, Switzerland or Singapore have stepped in. But I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to see what emerges and I think a lot depends the extent to which European countries have already replaced UK services with their own or the extent to which, say, Switzerland or Singapore have stepped in. But I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

The EU can, at its own descretion, allow UK based services to continue to operate within the EU. As such the EU need not fear a sudden switch off as it is within its power to allow continued access to financial services, under its own terms. This will only happen where there is an advantage to the EU from allowing it, and can be revoked at any time which will create a damaging uncertantity on the UK side prompting businesses reliant on the EU market to consider relocating to the EU.

Exemptions made in such a circumstance will not be part of a trade off with the UK, they will be unilateral EU measures. As such those areas where facilitation is needed by the UK but not the EU will see the UK denied facilitation causing significant damage to the UK position.

Bit cynical wrote: »

However I think most FTAs involve periodic reviews and updating. Having current alignment means that for the areas covered, initial standards don't need to be hammered out piece by piece.

In the absence of agreement on continued alignment then existing alignment counts for nothing.

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK whereas with Canada it may be some other sector.

... Which means a mixed deal which must agreed by national parliaments which cannot be done in a year.

As regards any form of deal, the UK is nearby while Canada is far away. The UK - and the EU- are bound by the laws of economic gravity/distance - it is more important that the EU demand higher standards from the UK for even relatively similar deals to those granted to others.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

This is an obvious move. The US, especially under Trump, will use tariffs as a court/judgement if they feel they are being wronged. The problem with this is they are the judge in their own case and will never decide to tariff themselves even when they are the ones at fault. It makes sense for the other WTO nations to create a new mechanism and to deal with the US as it falls outside of the WTO.


As for the coming talks, here is an article highlighting some of the issues that will need to be sorted,

Brexit 2020: Everything you need to know about Boris Johnson's trade deal nightmare

Cool, so everything's sorted right? Brexit is getting done, everything's going back to normal and I never have to talk about trade again.

Oh yeah, no sorry. That's all a lie. We are about to enter the most perilous system-level recalibration of an advanced economy in trading history.

What is interesting is that there still isn't a policy from the UK. This is evident from the Javid quotes that both said they will leave any influence from the EU and at the same time have a close relationship. I think Johnson will go for a BRINO, just because he is lazy and this is the easiest path for him. All he needs to do then is sell his deal as the best thing ever and the sheep will follow him there. He did it with May's deal, he can do it with the trade deal. The question is how will the likes of Mark Francois react when he realises he has been burnt? It happened with the DUP and seeing as remainers aren't in cahoots with Johnson the people he will burn this time will be Brexiteers and the ERG.