Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

theological wrote: »

According to The Telegraph trade negotiations with the US will start in the next two weeks.

This is really good news. Good progress in these discussions would put the UK in a good place both in respect to US trade but also in showing that it is serious about moving to a more global focus for trade.

Remember this is the US that reopened NAFTA because they wanted more and threatened both Canada and Mexico.

That pulled out of the Paris Accord and tore up the Iran deal.

But yeah, sure, they are going to give a wounded and under pressure UK a good deal.

Dream on. Negotiations with the US before they get even close to a deal with the EU is a recipe for disaster.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/uk-lays-down-red-line-for-brexit-trade-talks-1.4183249?mode=amp

UK is laying down it's red lines.

Funny that we have seen them time and again cross their own red lines, or sack the lad who set them and let his replacement cross them.

theological wrote: »

So far I don't think the US are demanding any more than what the EU are. It's good to start discussing with them. Liberalising trade with the US would be good for Britain.

Perfectly fine to start discussing with them, but since they have no idea what areas they are looking to target since they have no idea what the impact of Brexit will be, how are they going to do it?

The aim of a trade deal is to increase trade and to give way on some areas in return for increased access in others. But the UK have no idea what shape their industry will be in.

Should they target auto production to make up for the expected loss from Brexit? And what do they give in return since this is an area the US very much wants to move back to the US?

So they are starting negotiations without having any idea what they want, what they can afford to give. And the US have no need to be anything but welcoming. Whatever about the EU, a UK without a trade deal with the EU really is facing a US holding all the cards.

It is only being done because Johnson needs to have something, anything with 'Trade Deal' written on it to be seen to have won.

A few straws in the wind suggest that UK is cooling on the idea of a UK:US trade deal, at least as the glorious centrepiece of Brexit.

1. Government ministers have stopped banging on about a US trade deal, in the way they used to. They have gone very quiet on the subject - in marked contrast to all that is being said about an EU trade deal. This tends to confirm what the critics of Brexit have said all along - that the relationship with the EU is far more important to the UK than the relationship with the US; it is notable that the government has stopped resisting this narrative.

2. The UK has delayed (again) the publication of its negotiating objectives for the trade deal with the US (which by all accounts were pretty much ready last September). And they have delayed a trip by Johnson to the US (which he is expected to use as a platform to launch the trade talks). They don’t seem to want to start and, obvs, the longer they put off starting the longer it will before they get a deal.

3. The Huawei decision has pissed off the US, and the UK knew it would but made the decision anyway. What this tells us is that HMG prioritises its domestic agenda (speedy rollout of 5G, upgrade of UK’s telecommunications network) over the relationship with US. (Just as it prioritises its domestic agenda over the relationship with the EU.)

4. This helps to explain why they might be cooling on a US trade deal; the US will certainly make demands in that deal that would be problematic for the domestic agenda.

5. All this faffing about by cabinet members on will-we won’t-we honour our commitments in the NI protocol plays very badly in the US - not so much with the Trump administration but in Congress, who need to be on board for any trade deal. The fact that this doesn’t seem to deter them suggests cabinet isn’t really bothered about obstacles to the ratification of a US:UK trade deal.

6. Also, I think Tories were a bit taken aback at the amount of traction which concerns about the US trade deal found in the general election campaign - NHS worries, food standards worries, pharmaceutical worrries. Issue here is not how well-founded these worries are, but whether HMG wants to have to deal with them at the same time as dealing with what looks to be shaping up as a fairly rocky exit from the Single Market later this year.

7. HMG’s own modelling suggests that no US trade deal will do very much at all to alleviate the impact of leaving the Single Market (especially without an EU trade deal, if that is what happens). They might prefer to have the prospect of a US trade deal, enabling them to promise good things in due time to make up for all this pain, rather than an actual trade deal, revealed to be a bust.

Tl;dr: I think for the UK government the US trade deal has been moved to the back burner. Even on the most optimistic view it’s not such a great thing for the UK, and it doesn’t suit them to acknowledge or expose that right now. Trump does want something quickly, but can probably be gratified with a limited, sector-specific deal with minimal content that can be hailed as the greatest deal in the entire history of ever.

theological wrote: »

How has it been moved to the back burner if negotiations are starting in two weeks?

While Sky News is saying that "Prime Minister Boris Johnson is ready to begin trade talks with the US within the coming fortnight, according to a report", they don't say who is reporting this. The Financial Times, meanwhile, states that "There is still no formal date for the beginning of the talks", and adds that "The White House, Treasury and US trade representative declined to comment". So I wouldn't be rushing to accept the Sky report at face value.

If talks do start soon, it doesn't look to me as if they are going to be very serious talks at this stage. They'll been decoupled from Johnson's US visit, which suggests a political downgrading. More to the point, though, the UK has still to adopt its negotiating objectives, and starting talks less than two weeks after doing so would mean starting talks at a time when key UK stakeholders have yet to digest or buy into the UK government's position - a point which would not be lost on the US negotiators, who are experienced at this kind of thing.

Plus, as pointed out above, if the UK were serious about getting stuck into trade negotiations with the US, this would be a really bad time to make the Huawei decision they have just made, or to start raising doubts about their willingness to comply with the treaty they have just made regarding the Irish border. The timing of the Huawei decision is maybe forced on them by circumstances, but the latter shot-in-the-foot seems to be entirely unforced.

volchitsa wrote: »

But they're meaningless if the UK wants a trade deal. They aren't going to get a deal if they're wanting to export goods to the EU that don't respect EU regulations. So since everywhere in the Uk has already been following those regulations, it makes more sense for them to continue doing so - it's by far the easiest way to facilitate such a deal.

This. Brexit has always been about the tradeoff between advantageous trade terms and regulatory autonomy, and those who campaigned for Brexit on the basis that it would lead to "the easiest trade deal in history" were presumably indicating that they would prioritise advantageous trade terms over regulatory autonomy - a rational and defensible choice, and certaintly not "Brexit in name only".

davedanon wrote: »

Anyone who wants to read a rational, well-argued analysis of Brexit-related issues, rather than the bloke down the pub what I reckoning and flag-waving nonsense spouted by the usual suspects on here, take a look at Chris Grey's blog. Only Tony Connelly measures up in terms of the consistent excellence of their analyses.

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2020/02/zersetzung-brexit.html

I had a quick read, he doesn't draw any conclusions. Lots of "multiple interpretation" vagueries about his analysis.

No doubt he's a smart man who can write prose, but no real insight.

theological wrote: »

According to The Telegraph trade negotiations with the US will start in the next two weeks.

This is really good news. Good progress in these discussions would put the UK in a good place both in respect to US trade but also in showing that it is serious about moving to a more global focus for trade.

Indeed but the trade deal has to go before Congress and then be agreed upon by congress. There's bipartisan support of the Good Friday agreement on both sides of the house. A trade deal would likely be dead in the water if Boris tried to get around checks in the Irish sea. Also even if the UK did get a trade deal, it would get shafted. They'd be accepting lower standard agricultural products.

theological wrote: »

According to The Telegraph trade negotiations with the US will start in the next two weeks.

This is really good news. Good progress in these discussions would put the UK in a good place both in respect to US trade but also in showing that it is serious about moving to a more global focus for trade.

Let's accept, for a moment, the idea that this is "good news" and will move the UK's focus more towards global trade: now what would you, as a supporter of Brexit and enthusiastic supporter of this move, like to see as the top five items being the subject of such a trade deal? Preferably with figures showing the net cost/benefit to the UK over a period of your choice. (Serious request)

Peregrinus wrote:

They are not all good for import. They are subject to tariffs, quotas and other restrictions. That's the point. If they wanted a trade deal to reduce or elminate tariffs and quotas, then the concerns you mention would certainly be on the table.

Correct. If the UK wants the same level of access to the EU market they enjoyed while part of it, will have to comply with EU terms.

Peregrinus wrote:

The question is not whether the UK is about to become a sweatshop. The question is whether it will lower labour, environmental, state aid etc standards, and thereby expose EU producers, who have to comply with these standards, to unfair competition if they have a tariff free, quota free trade deal.

The same standards must be applied to the places the UK import from. The EU is not giving them an open back door to their market.

They can still do business in the EU but it will be on third party terms, with all that that entails - quotas, tariffs and border controls.

And unless goods pass EU quality/health/safety standards, they don't get in at all.