From the BBC:
A post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the EU "seems unlikely" at this stage, the bloc's negotiator has said.
Speaking after the latest round of talks, Michel Barnier said he was "disappointed" and "concerned". His UK counterpart David Frost spoke of "little progress", amid differences on fisheries policy and state aid rules.
The EU never had any real interest in a trade deal with the UK, and certainly not one that was of benefit to the UK. The UK must suffer, and be seen to be suffer for daring to vote 'Leave', just to dissuade any other Member States from even thinking about it.
Sure, this will cost their economy as well, but the rest-of-EU economy is six times as big as the UK's. If the lost trade costs the EU 1% of their GDP, they can tolerate that, knowing it will cost the UK 6% of theirs.
The UK government is equally worthy of contempt of course.
They are grandstanding idiots who appear to have believed that they could negotiate some sort of mutually beneficial deal, or even that the EU was a reliable negotiating partner in the first place. Whatever the UK agrees with the EU's 'head office', each Member State and the EU Parliament still has a veto, so it's pointless.
The penny hasn't dropped yet, even after four years of time wasting and uncertainty.
If he'd been taking his duties as PM seriously, Cameron would have started organising our re-entry into EFTA and remaining in the EEA/Single Market long before the Referendum, just as back up in case Project Fear didn't work (it backfired spectacularly). And instead of flouncing off the day after the Referendum, he'd just have made a couple of 'phone calls and set the transition in motion.
EFTA/EEA - half-in, half-out. Most of the advantages of full EU membership (and there are many) with most of the advantages of not being a Member State (of which there are equally many). What's not to like?
Wednesday, 26 August 2020
OK, sod it, EFTA/EEA it is then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
«The EU never had any real interest in a trade deal with the UK, and certainly not one that was of benefit to the UK»
That is just hand-waving paranoia: the EU negotiators have offered the Conservative Party negotiators all possible options, each modelled on an existing trade deal with a third party country, and the Conservatives have simply rejected all of them:
https://twitter.com/jennifermerode/status/943037113406238720
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/slide_presented_by_barnier_at_euco_15-12-2017.pdf
Those trade deals were regarded as being of benefit to their country by the governments of Canada, south Korea, Japan, Turkey, Norway/..., etc., so if the Conservatives rejected them, it is on their head; for claiming to be entitled to "have our cake and eat it too", and as to that Barnier also declared very clearly and legitimately and without any ill will:
https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/030770026245-barnier-le-royaume-uni-ne-pourra-pas-avoir-les-avantages-de-la-norvege-et-les-faibles-contraintes-du-canada-2124526.php
«On ne peut en aucun cas imaginer un système qui comporterait les avantages dont jouit la Norvège avec les faibles contraintes du Canada.»
Means: "It is not possible anyhow to imagine a system that has the advantages enjoyed by Norway with the weak commitments of Canada". But both the government of Norway and Canada found their deal of benefit, even if not as much as one that had the advantages of Norway and the commitments of Canada.
But also if “The [country X] never had any real interest in a trade deal with the UK, and certainly not one that was of benefit to the UK” applies to the EU, that phrase also applies to *nearly every other country* with which the UK has been negotiating trade deals, including the USA. David Davis had written authoritatively in 2016 just after the referendum:
“within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and many others”
That should have happened by 2018. Nothing like that has happened so far. Have the USA and China and Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia also been eager to backstab the UK? If so why does such a large number of important country hate the UK?
B2, interesting. What sort of clauses were there in the EU-Canada treaty about "fisheries policy and state aid rules"?
And David Davies is a "grandstanding idiot", I already said that. But our idiocy is no defence against general EU shittiness. The lack of treaties is only partly down to UK incompetence - third countries have to some extent been bullied by the EU. The same as the USA bullies everybody.
"The EU never had any real interest in a trade deal with the UK, and certainly not one that was of benefit to the UK."
Nor did the Tories have any real interest in a trade deal with the EU or anyone else. To them Brexit was and remains, simply a major strategy in their own internal war between Leave and Remain and their external war against non-Blairite Labour. Just as the Troubles in Northern Ireland appeared to be about religion, but were actually about access to power, so is the entire Brexit debacle. The voters may care about it, but at Westminster, it's just a means to an end.
«B2, interesting. What sort of clauses were there in the EU-Canada treaty about "fisheries policy and state aid rules"?»
Oh please! The "fisheries policy and state aid rules" are just trading chips, if the Conservatives don't want to put them on the table, but still get concessions, they are just being "cakeist". Also wasn't it claimed that "we have all the cards"? Then soon the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" will fold shamelessly, so don't worry :-).
Anyhow "fisheries policy and state aid rules" are not an issue with all the others, USA, China, Australia, Canada, etc., yet the Conservatives have not got, after 4 years, any trade treaties with them, so the EU is rather not unique as to that. Why none of them, despite no dispute as to fisheries or state aid, "had any real interest in a trade deal with the UK, and certainly not one that was of benefit to the UK"?
Just because the EUSSR bullied them? How can the EUSSR bully the USA, China, Japan, etc.?
But then, for the sake of argument let's say the the EUSSR have been "bullying" the UK by failing (but only so far) to recognize that the UK has all the cards, and have been "bullying" the USA, China, Japan, etc. to stop them from doing deals with the UK. With vicious people like that who would want to do a trade treaty at all, never mind vassalage in the form of EFTA/EEA membership?
Nearly half voted to remain. That should be taken into account. A half in, half out policy seems reflect that reality.
In all of this is lost the simple result of the 2016 referendum and the promise to implement whatever the result was. The implication by Call Me was that it would be completed asap.
MW. You cannot be half In / half Out. That's like being a little bit pregnant. In any event the SM is part of the EU's control mechanisms. There are no realist options other than fully Out of fully In. And given that choice Out it must be. The EU is a racket.
"Nearly half voted to remain. That should be taken into account. A half in, half out policy seems reflect that reality."
So if the vote had been 52/48 for Remain we'd also have gone to a halfway-house rather than staying in the EU?
I don't think so, so we won't this way either. We voted Out so Out it must be.
B, agreed. The Tories do not have best interests of the country at heart. I never said they did.
B2, "With vicious people like that who would want to do a trade treaty at all, never mind vassalage in the form of EFTA/EEA membership?" I would.
Benj, ta for back up.
L, yes there is half in/half out, it's called EFTA/EEA like Norway or Switzerland (and yes I know that CH is technically not in EEA but it might as well be).
S, it's called being magnanimous in victory. It is also fairly future proof. Those who want to rejoin EU or leave EFTA/EEA and go WTO-only will be just a rabid few at the outer fringes. Most people and most businesses will be reasonably happy.
MW. I disagree.
Norway takes all sorts of rules over which it has no control. That's just not Brexit. The democratic deficit bit.
Switzerland seems to work on a series of bilateral agreements (which I recall from some newsflow) the EU is now undermining as a sort of bullying to make the Swiss join. Also it seems that as part of the ongoing Swiss / EU negotiations the EU are trying to have the ECJ as the final and binding arbiter of disputes. If that applied to the UK that would not be Brexit either.
I think that the EU is fundamentally not interested in any half in / half out unless it has control in some way. EEA seems to give them that control, which is not Brexit.
L, yes, the EU can bully EFTA at present because of weight of numbers. This would be less so if the UK joined EFTA. The ideal would be two blocs of similar size where neither can bully the other.
"which is not Brexit."
Brexit was never defined, except, recursively, as Brexit, so Brexit tends to be what people would like it to be. However, going purely on semantics, Brexit is the exit of Britain from the EU. Membership of the EFTA/EEA is not membership of the EU, therefore it is Brexit. It may not be the Brexit you would like to see and it may, in your view, amount to the same thing as membership, but that is not the point. Your Brexit is not the Brexit that the 52% of people voted for. Some people voted for the Brexit of membership of the EEA/EFTA. Others voted for other forms of Brexit.
"it's called being magnanimous in victory. It is also fairly future proof."
Its also not leaving, which is what were asked about. And I'm not going to be magnanimous in victory when I know my opponent would have not given me a moments thought if he had won.
" the EU can bully EFTA at present because of weight of numbers. This would be less so if the UK joined EFTA"
Nonsense. EFTA currently is Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. Total GDP approx $1tn. UK GDP is approx $3tn, so $4tn in total. The EU GDP is c. $19tn, so $16tn without the UK. I'd say that gives the EU the upper hand by some considerable margin.
B, exactly.
S, I know the numbers. At present EU outweighs EFTA twenty-to-one; if UK joined EFTA, it would be four-to-one. Nowhere near parity, but getting there...
And you don't seem to grasp the concept of magnanimity.
Also, even if you aren't a good winner, surely you grasp the concept that EFTA/EEA is a nice sort of compromise that nobody will care too much about one way or another, and so no future Farage or rabid Lib Dems (or indeed opportunistic Tories) can exploit it to their own ends.
" surely you grasp the concept that EFTA/EEA is a nice sort of compromise that nobody will care too much about one way or another, and so no future Farage or rabid Lib Dems (or indeed opportunistic Tories) can exploit it to their own ends."
I can grasp the concept that it will be a lot easier for the Usual Suspects to get us back into the EU if we are in EFTA/EEA. If we leave properly over time laws will change in the UK vs in the EU, and getting back in would be far harder.
Apart from which Freedom of Movement still applies to EFTA, we would have to accept all the EU originated Single Market laws, pay about 2/3rds of what we do now (with no say over legislation) and the ECJ has jurisdiction. Which is NOT Leaving at all. Its leaving in name only. The UK would not be able to control immigration or set its own laws as it saw fit, and would be paying for the privilege. If you think thats a 'compromise' you need your head examining.
Leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market, its as simple as that. If you're in the SM and still subject to its contributions, rules and ECJ jurisdiction then you are still in the EU, just without a vote on how its run. Its worse than being in the bloody thing in the first place.
S, it's not as bad as you say. And I'm not opposed to FoM anyway. But fair enough, different people have different priorities, so they have different opinions on this whole in-out stuff.
B and MW ....I disagree...:-)
The propaganda by the Leave side was very clear as to what Brexit was thought to mean. The government's own leaflet repeated this - leave the SM, leave the CU, remove the ECJ from Uk legal system (which must be the case as there can be no meaningful Brexit of any kind if The Law is not local, save stuff handled by treaty by the likes of the International Court in The Hague). The same argument applies to taxation and to making our own individual tariff arrangements. I the the line taken by Sobers is the classic line taken to 'muddy the waters (says he trying to be polite and not offend). The EU is trying very hard, and understandably so, to keep the UK as harnessed as possible to the EU. For the reasons MW states, it must do this.
"the line taken by Sobers is the classic line taken to 'muddy the waters (says he trying to be polite and not offend)."
Huh? How am I 'muddying the waters'? I want to leave as much as you do, properly too, not a 'half in half out' position that is actually really in, in practical terms.
"Leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market, its as simple as that."
No it doesn't. Logic fail. The EU is more than the single market. It is perfectly possible to be in the Single Market and not be in the EU. To go from being in the EU and the single market to not being in the EU and still being in the single market means leaving the EU. Therefore leaving the EU does not mean leaving the single market.
"The propaganda by the Leave side was very clear as to what Brexit was thought to mean. The government's own leaflet repeated this - leave the SM, leave the CU, remove the ECJ from Uk legal system"
Except that the government was on the side of Remain, therefore of course they would represent Leave as being the hardest Brexit possible, it was all part of Project Fear. The actual Leave campaigns left the definition of Brexit as vague as possible, in order to get the maximum number of people voting for it. If they had nailed their colours to the mast and said Brexit meant a hard Brexit only, then they definitely would have lost, and they knew that, they were not stupid. That's why we had all that "Brexit means Brexit" bullshit.
S, also you and Lola appear to be operating in an ideal world, where we don't have selfish, uncaring and grasping idiots running the country. Back in the real world, the hard Brexit you want will result in no trade deals due to government indifference, intolerance and incompetence and a large numbers of barriers to trade with our erstwhile largest trading partner. Whilst I don't agree with Mark that the EU is making things difficult for us "pour encourager les autres", it takes quite a suspension of belief to think that our bloody minded attitude towards the EU isn't going to make it a lot harder to trade with them in the future. The government don't care, they're only in it for the power and the plundering of the public purse, they don't actually have to try and move any goods in or out of the EU.
S. Should have put 'muddy the waters' in inverted commas. It's not an 'accusation'. I was struggling to find the way to describe that argument which - to my mind - confuses things. And thanks for reminding me of your position. I had forgotten.
MW. Nor me. Opposed to FoM that is. We had excellent and workable FoM up until 1916 ish. No passports. No exchange controls. etc etc. And it was brilliant. But also no welfare state. Welfarism is incompatible with FoM.
B. I am not being bloody minded about the EU at all. It's very simple. We Leave. Would you like a free trade deal, or not?' If not. Ok Fine. No worries.
B, yes our political and bureaucratic class are woeful. Nearly, but not quite, as woeful as the EU's. We never going have any chance at all of fixing that In the EU - our extractive class use EU membership as a shield. So get Out and then stage 2, get after the bastard Tories, Blairites, Marxists, totalitarian socialists etc etc and especially get after the unaccountable bureaucrats.
And FWIW an FTA is not free trade. It's quite the opposite. It's a deal on who charges what tariffs. And latent protectionism.
If Brexit is to be any sort of Brexit you cannot stay in the SM, the CU and the ECJ. They are all configured as EU control mechanisms.
"If Brexit is to be any sort of Brexit you cannot stay in the SM, the CU and the ECJ. They are all configured as EU control mechanisms."
Exactly. They are all integral parts of the whole that is 'The European Union'. Can you be in the EU and not in the SM, the CU or under the control of the ECJ. No, you can't, its not mix and match. Ergo Leaving the EU requires you to be out of those as well.
S. Exactly. And Norway suffers EU rules over which it has no say. That cannot be at all reasonable for an alleged democracy. Having law setters outwith the control of The Voter.
Personally I do not specifically wish the EU ill. Such a bloc could be A Good Thing if it restricted itself to keeping peace and trade going. That is, it intermediated in disputes between say, France and Germany, on car import tariffs. But it doesn't. It in fact cannot. It was set up to create a defacto European Superstate/Empire (you choose). But whilst it's been doing that the world has moved from Empires and blocs to networks and platforms. Arguably free trade is returning of its own accord. This does not at all suit the EU elite who can see that it's not Brexit per se that's the threat. The threat is those networks and platforms that do not require supervision and bureaucratic rule setting and cannot easily be tax farmed. Power is draining away and Brexit only highlights that. The EU nomenklaturer were never going to agree to an EU / UK FTA.
IMHO Brexit is about more than Brexit. As our home grown 'elite' wants to be in the EU clearly Brexit is a giant 'up yours' moment. Why else have we had 4 years of ruling class shenanigans? The ruling class don't like being told. I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of Out voters (like me) see Brexit as the only way to start the process of winkling out the self regarding cronyism of our own lords and masters. In truth we don't need most of them and they know it.
" I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of Out voters (like me) see Brexit as the only way to start the process of winkling out the self regarding cronyism of our own lords and masters. In truth we don't need most of them and they know it."
Its the first time the Political Elite have run into the voters unequivocally saying 'No' and they certainly didn't like it, not least because it sets a precedent. If the people get the idea they can vote for things to change, who knows what might happen........
Nearly everyone looks at this from the sellers' perspective. The EU will be cutting of its people from an important supplier of goods and services. This will cause trouble and expense in some parts of the EU, especially Ireland, and in some sectors.
Phys, yes, by staying in EFTA/EEA, we are doing them a favour as well. All good stuff.
When the EU exports to the UK, all they end up with is pieces of plastic with pictures of the Queen on them.
S, B, Leave voters are racists who don't care if we all catch super-gonorrhea. Fact.
Post a Comment