How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
ash73 said:
At least compare apples and apples; if you want to chuck some figures about have a read of this:
https://www.thecityuk.com/assets/2016/Reports-PDF/...
There seems to be a lot of financial services experts on here, I'd be interested in their (your?) views on whether the forecast £7-12 billion reduction is (a) realistic and (b) able to be mitigated by an appropriate trade deal or passporting arrangement.
I will read that (not least because it looks interesting and is bang on point) but I really have to do some work this afternoon - this is far too distracting to be a good thing!https://www.thecityuk.com/assets/2016/Reports-PDF/...
There seems to be a lot of financial services experts on here, I'd be interested in their (your?) views on whether the forecast £7-12 billion reduction is (a) realistic and (b) able to be mitigated by an appropriate trade deal or passporting arrangement.
s2art said:
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
zbc said:
Of course we can but what you seem to be missing is that we will also need to negotiate deals with all the countries that the EU has trade deals with. If we leave the EU we are no longer party to those deals.
Not true. We are co-signitories to those deals. All it needs is a nod from those Countries and a rubber stamp at the UN.They've signed up to a deal with the EU that gives them access to a market of 500m people and the full range of goods offered by all the EU countries.
We have 65m people and a subset of those goods. Different deal, surely.
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
zbc said:
Of course we can but what you seem to be missing is that we will also need to negotiate deals with all the countries that the EU has trade deals with. If we leave the EU we are no longer party to those deals.
Not true. We are co-signitories to those deals. All it needs is a nod from those Countries and a rubber stamp at the UN.They've signed up to a deal with the EU that gives them access to a market of 500m people and the full range of goods offered by all the EU countries.
We have 65m people and a subset of those goods. Different deal, surely.
s2art said:
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
zbc said:
Of course we can but what you seem to be missing is that we will also need to negotiate deals with all the countries that the EU has trade deals with. If we leave the EU we are no longer party to those deals.
Not true. We are co-signitories to those deals. All it needs is a nod from those Countries and a rubber stamp at the UN.They've signed up to a deal with the EU that gives them access to a market of 500m people and the full range of goods offered by all the EU countries.
We have 65m people and a subset of those goods. Different deal, surely.
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
Greg66 said:
s2art said:
zbc said:
Of course we can but what you seem to be missing is that we will also need to negotiate deals with all the countries that the EU has trade deals with. If we leave the EU we are no longer party to those deals.
Not true. We are co-signitories to those deals. All it needs is a nod from those Countries and a rubber stamp at the UN.They've signed up to a deal with the EU that gives them access to a market of 500m people and the full range of goods offered by all the EU countries.
We have 65m people and a subset of those goods. Different deal, surely.
The EU currently funds numerous development projects around the world in low and middle income regions. Some in Europe and some in key strategic locations for the EU elsewhere in the world. These cover things such as transport, hospitals, schools, highways, waste management and other social development projects.
These projects all have two distinct phases: Development and Implementation. Implementation draws money from donor institutions such as the World Bank to fund construction and the tenders for these construction projects go first to EU based companies. Only if no suitable EU company can be found do these tenders go global. The value of these projects is often vast and requires consortium bids but again, the aim is for those consortiums to comprise EU companies.
Being outside of the EU, UK companies would thus no longer get first dibs on these tenders and if they did go global, those UK companies would then have to compete against similar companies from Korea, China, etc' who can do just a good a job but for considerably less money. So, we'd simply not be able to compete.
The UK negotiations would thus need to argue that having contributed to the development of these projects over the past years, we should be included in the first round tender opportunities for several years yet, with this tapering off in time.
I am currently working on three such projects (at development stages), all via German project leadership. One is about to move to implementation stage with a budget over two years of something like $200m. My German clients said that politically, it would be unlikely that any UK company would be selected as politically, questions would be asked at home as to why a company from the UK which has chosen to leave the EU has been selected over one comparable from another country that hasn't.
The solution is for those UK companies to relocate to Europe - but this can't simply be opening an office somewhere, you have to pay the majority of corporate tax to the country in which you are HQ'ed so the UK would end up loosing considerable tax revenue.
This will be a difficult one to negotiate.
These projects all have two distinct phases: Development and Implementation. Implementation draws money from donor institutions such as the World Bank to fund construction and the tenders for these construction projects go first to EU based companies. Only if no suitable EU company can be found do these tenders go global. The value of these projects is often vast and requires consortium bids but again, the aim is for those consortiums to comprise EU companies.
Being outside of the EU, UK companies would thus no longer get first dibs on these tenders and if they did go global, those UK companies would then have to compete against similar companies from Korea, China, etc' who can do just a good a job but for considerably less money. So, we'd simply not be able to compete.
The UK negotiations would thus need to argue that having contributed to the development of these projects over the past years, we should be included in the first round tender opportunities for several years yet, with this tapering off in time.
I am currently working on three such projects (at development stages), all via German project leadership. One is about to move to implementation stage with a budget over two years of something like $200m. My German clients said that politically, it would be unlikely that any UK company would be selected as politically, questions would be asked at home as to why a company from the UK which has chosen to leave the EU has been selected over one comparable from another country that hasn't.
The solution is for those UK companies to relocate to Europe - but this can't simply be opening an office somewhere, you have to pay the majority of corporate tax to the country in which you are HQ'ed so the UK would end up loosing considerable tax revenue.
This will be a difficult one to negotiate.
Greg66 said:
Sway said:
Should we have walked away from the choice, because the path taken based on that choice is difficult?
As said, EFTA is happy for us to rejoin. They've got several ready made trade deals we'd adopt immediately, including with the EU (although I acknowledge the concern regarding FS passporting, which isn't included).
The other thing to bear in mind, is that we're not starting from scratch - far from it. A hell of a lot of the challenge of a trade deal is commonality of standards etc., this has already been done for the vast majority of the countries we'd be keen to gain a FTA with - as currently we have a FTA with them! Merely (and I know it's not quite as straightforward as that) cut'n'pasting the current agreement that has 'country X and the EU' and find'n'replacing the EU for the UK is a bloody good foundation to start...
It may be a good place for us to start, but not for our negotiating counterparties. As said, EFTA is happy for us to rejoin. They've got several ready made trade deals we'd adopt immediately, including with the EU (although I acknowledge the concern regarding FS passporting, which isn't included).
The other thing to bear in mind, is that we're not starting from scratch - far from it. A hell of a lot of the challenge of a trade deal is commonality of standards etc., this has already been done for the vast majority of the countries we'd be keen to gain a FTA with - as currently we have a FTA with them! Merely (and I know it's not quite as straightforward as that) cut'n'pasting the current agreement that has 'country X and the EU' and find'n'replacing the EU for the UK is a bloody good foundation to start...
The EU trade deals are based on the counterparty having access to a market of 500m people (or whatever the EU population is - I think that's close enough) producing a massive range of goods.
The counterparty is likely to want to tip the balance of the agreement more towards its interests if negotiating with a market of 65m people producing a narrower range of goods.
And that's when we will need the negotiators.
I don't think it is a case of "walk away because too difficult"; I think the scope of the task has been massively undersold/underestimated (depending on your level of cynicism) and we are woefully unprepared for what we have to do. My guess is that to get properly prepared would have taken years - not months or weeks. From what I have read trade negotiations are 80% preparation and 20% negotiation.
However, just want to pick up on your points.
In my understanding, the larger the market you are, the harder to achieve a free trade deal, not the inverse as you imply.
The reason for this is that by definition, a FTA removes tariff based protections of indigenous industry. It says you're confident that the market you're signing a FTA with will not outcompete your local industry, but complement it. And vice versa.
Hence why EFTA (and it's member states individually) have managed more quality deals than the EU. They don't have singular vested interests in a single member nation blocking things as they know that industry will be wiped out once the tariff protection is lost - look at the tariffs applied to EU imports of foodstuffs as a great example. European wheat farmers would go extinct without an 18% tariff on American wheat that's grown significantly more efficiently.
In the UK's case, as an independent nation (or my preferred option of EFTA member), we are smaller. That means two things - yes, it's less of a marketplace for your exports (although as a wealthy nation we do punch above most nation's weight in purchasing power) but crucially, it's also less likely to be capable of unilaterally destroying one of 'your' industries as we're just not big enough.
So the 'tipping of the balance' is perhaps more even than you state. Yes, smaller potential win for you Mr Canada/China/Singapore, but also far less risk over any term too...
Sway said:
As said, EFTA is happy for us to rejoin.
the.local.no said:
Prime Minister Erna Solberg said on Tuesday she has not concluded whether a British membership in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) would be good for Norway.
link http://www.thelocal.no/20160628/norway-pm-wont-com...They've not decided, fair enough - a couple of the other PMs are in support.
There's the same lack of downsides for Norway as there was when we both helped form EFTA, we complement not compete with each other internally (we're never going to export fish to them, nor them to us), but as a united front have serious specialisms to offer global trade.
There's the same lack of downsides for Norway as there was when we both helped form EFTA, we complement not compete with each other internally (we're never going to export fish to them, nor them to us), but as a united front have serious specialisms to offer global trade.
Burwood said:
jonnyb said:
Hosenbugler said:
New Zealanders keen as mustard by sound of things
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/684800/EU-referen...
Snippets like this help reinforce my long held view that we are entering a period of great opportunity. Free of the bureaucratic EU shackles.
Excellent, New Zealand. Wonder what the cost of that will be? Maybe all the British sheep farmers should be looking for new jobs. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/684800/EU-referen...
Snippets like this help reinforce my long held view that we are entering a period of great opportunity. Free of the bureaucratic EU shackles.
We'll do you a favour and lease you John Key, he's a top class leader, will sort out Europe for you no problems. Might actually be a lizard in disguise but he knows how to win elections and screw over just about anyone.
(*watch out if you have a pony tail though)
don4l said:
I've just read that we don't actually have any trade negotiators.
I suspect that we will have to choose who we try to do deals with.
So, do we prioritise the EU?
Or do we try to do deals with the growing economies of the world?
I don't see the point of trying to do a deal with people who don't appear to actually like us. Tusk and Junker made their feelings clear yesterday. Let's just take them at their word.
So you just abandon the £300Bn EU market until they get someone you like? Like waiting for a pitate memory game thats a little less piratey. Do you stick your bottom lip out while you're waiting? I suspect that we will have to choose who we try to do deals with.
So, do we prioritise the EU?
Or do we try to do deals with the growing economies of the world?
I don't see the point of trying to do a deal with people who don't appear to actually like us. Tusk and Junker made their feelings clear yesterday. Let's just take them at their word.
The sophistication of the leave argument is laid particularly bare of late.
Sway said:
They've not decided, fair enough - a couple of the other PMs are in support.
There's the same lack of downsides for Norway as there was when we both helped form EFTA, we complement not compete with each other internally (we're never going to export fish to them, nor them to us), but as a united front have serious specialisms to offer global trade.
You do this with most of your posts. You put your opinion as fact and go from there without any evidence whatsoever. There's the same lack of downsides for Norway as there was when we both helped form EFTA, we complement not compete with each other internally (we're never going to export fish to them, nor them to us), but as a united front have serious specialisms to offer global trade.
Read the link. Her priority is, quite rightly, Norway.
Norway PM said:
An EFTA agreement will give us a good relationship with the UK. We can also get [a good relationship with the UK] through other agreements as well. And do we want Britain to be involved in dictating what the EFTA negotiates with third countries? Will our key national interests being benefited by that? That is the discussion we need to have,” Solberg said, pointing out that the dynamics of the EFTA negotiations with other countries will change.
If you want to read that as ; EFTA happy for UK to join, you go ahead.Edited by jjlynn27 on Thursday 30th June 22:48
///ajd said:
So you just abandon the £300Bn EU market until they get someone you like? Like waiting for a pitate memory game thats a little less piratey. Do you stick your bottom lip out while you're waiting?
The sophistication of the leave argument is laid particularly bare of late.
You do realise that we can still trade without a trade agreement don't you?The sophistication of the leave argument is laid particularly bare of late.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Dr Jekyll said:
You do realise that we can still trade without a trade agreement don't you?
Are you sure?What is stopping a country, or the EU in this case, simply banning all imports from the UK?
Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff