Discussion
HarryW said:
As a thought, when they say that agreeing trade deals with the EU takes many years to complete, is that indicative of how difficult it is, or is it indicative how s
te and bureaucratic (ergo French) the EU has become.
Taking into account that trade deal with Canada took over 7 years, and that Russian deal with WTO took 14 years, it seems that it just takes time. Or they are all just really really bad at it. Not sure that that helps us in either case.te and bureaucratic (ergo French) the EU has become. jjlynn27 said:
HarryW said:
As a thought, when they say that agreeing trade deals with the EU takes many years to complete, is that indicative of how difficult it is, or is it indicative how ste and bureaucratic (ergo French) the EU has become.
Taking into account that trade deal with Canada took over 7 years, and that Russian deal with WTO took 14 years, it seems that it just takes time. Or they are all just really really bad at it. Not sure that that helps us in either case.te and bureaucratic (ergo French) the EU has become. s2art said:
No. Its a function of trying to do a deal which 28 states have to agree on. A deal between the UK and US could be done in months not years.
America likes free trade deals - even in the current political climate and I agree with the general gist that it would be in both party's interests but unfortunately that's not how trade deals work...To see how America does "simple" trade deals its worth having a wee look at their first Bilateral trade deal - The 1855 Reciprocity Treaty - think of it as the daddy of them all between a still-British NA territories (i.e Canada) and the United States. Free Trade treaties were a constant source of contention until the C-US FTA of 1988 when it became really very controversial (C-US FTA took four years to negotiate even though there was a 130 year old constantly-evolving basis for it.) C-US FTA eventually spawned NAFTA with the Canadians fighting numerous general elections in the late 80s solely debating free trade. Even with very fair wind behind it NAFTA (trilateral with Mexico) took another four years to negotiate. Remember it had an immediate predecessor (C-US FTA) and also a 135 year history of constant reciprocal free trade agreements.
So with fair wind behind us and goodwill - based on recent history, four years looks like a likely timeline...but, but, but!
America is a) in an election year b) has a notoriously log jammed legislature c) free trade deals are political dynamite in 2016 and d) the grand-daddy of all problems is that America is currently in late-stage, concluding negotiations of the two most complex, controversial and difficult trade agreements ever conceived - TPP and TTIP (with the extremely controversial ISDS add-on). We were on board with TTIP and now are not. So when POTUS said "back of the queue" he wasn't being dismissive - he was merely pointing out that the American legislative branch is still up to its eyes in far, far bigger, far, far more important trade deals (TPP and TTIP) to then drop everything and start negotiation with an economy smaller than California. Please keep in mind that "the special relationship" isn't a one-way street - its just that traffic rarely goes in the opposite direction!
So the best case scenario? Its going to take more than four years and less than ten. If the next two years are made up of EU exit negotiations then I very much doubt we will start wider world trade deals until the EU exit negotiations are concluding - besides we are still an EU member until then anyway so other bilateral negotiations will still have to remain "informal" .
In short, best estimates are we'll have a free trade deal with the Americans by 2022...not ideal
jjlynn27 said:
s2art said:
No. Its a function of trying to do a deal which 28 states have to agree on. A deal between the UK and US could be done in months not years.
I'm not sure why you post things like this. On another thread you said that EFTA is 5 minutes job. How odd. Jockman said:
Do you feel there was deliberate intent by those drawing up the Lisbon Treaty to ensure that there are no provisions for this?
In effect, once a country serves A50 there is nothing to say it cannot be withdrawn at any stage in the 2 year window.
Any attempt by European Countries to undertake radical reform in the interim surely plays into the hands of the Leave vote? Negotiations with Scotland again play into the hands of the Leave vote. If more than just idle gossip, why would they do that?
The simple reading of Article 50 is that once its triggered by notification the Treaties of the EU would cease to be applicable to the member triggering after either a two year period or the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement. If no agreement is forthcoming then the Article 50-invoking member state is no longer bound by (or protected by) any EU treaties and will drop to the WTO standard for trade relations and be totally out of the EU. All negotiations within Article 50 only require a qualified majority (as per Article 7) and not agreement of all member states. Therefore the UK triggering it and then rejecting any and all deals would result in ejection. The UK triggering it and then rowing back and try to withdraw notification is not covered in Article 50 except by the cryptic references to "re-joining" - which means "invoke article 50 and if you change your mind it means immediately losing the UK £5 billion rebate" (which is £96 million per week if we are to keep within the spirit of the current debate!!)In effect, once a country serves A50 there is nothing to say it cannot be withdrawn at any stage in the 2 year window.
Any attempt by European Countries to undertake radical reform in the interim surely plays into the hands of the Leave vote? Negotiations with Scotland again play into the hands of the Leave vote. If more than just idle gossip, why would they do that?
So if its in the UKs interest to run the clock down on A50 then that's a strong position to be in. But I see no circumstances where it would be in our interests and EU member states could vote by qualified majority to offer us a deal that they know we couldn't politically accept (i.e. free movement) so as to precipitate the UK being effectively ejected onto the WTO standard - and make no mistake about that...WTO standard is intended to be a penalty clause as it will be massively economically damaging. Hence why our negotiating position is especially weak and all of the pretenders to the Tory throne know this full well.
And in relation to an earlier post I made - 24 months is an incredibly tight timescale in negotiations this complex, another reason why I have always thought of Article 50 as a deterrent clause rather than a viable treaty mechanism.
In fact a sensible, careful and intelligent prime minister may have found it helpful to have focused on reform to (or at least clarification of) Article 50 in his pre-referendum negotiations with the EU - just in case!
MrADC said:
America likes free trade deals - even in the current political climate and I agree with the general gist that it would be in both party's interests but unfortunately that's not how trade deals work...
To see how America does "simple" trade deals its worth having a wee look at their first Bilateral trade deal - The 1855 Reciprocity Treaty - think of it as the daddy of them all between a still-British NA territories (i.e Canada) and the United States. Free Trade treaties were a constant source of contention until the C-US FTA of 1988 when it became really very controversial (C-US FTA took four years to negotiate even though there was a 130 year old constantly-evolving basis for it.) C-US FTA eventually spawned NAFTA with the Canadians fighting numerous general elections in the late 80s solely debating free trade. Even with very fair wind behind it NAFTA (trilateral with Mexico) took another four years to negotiate. Remember it had an immediate predecessor (C-US FTA) and also a 135 year history of constant reciprocal free trade agreements.
So with fair wind behind us and goodwill - based on recent history, four years looks like a likely timeline...but, but, but!
America is a) in an election year b) has a notoriously log jammed legislature c) free trade deals are political dynamite in 2016 and d) the grand-daddy of all problems is that America is currently in late-stage, concluding negotiations of the two most complex, controversial and difficult trade agreements ever conceived - TPP and TTIP (with the extremely controversial ISDS add-on). We were on board with TTIP and now are not. So when POTUS said "back of the queue" he wasn't being dismissive - he was merely pointing out that the American legislative branch is still up to its eyes in far, far bigger, far, far more important trade deals (TPP and TTIP) to then drop everything and start negotiation with an economy smaller than California. Please keep in mind that "the special relationship" isn't a one-way street - its just that traffic rarely goes in the opposite direction!
So the best case scenario? Its going to take more than four years and less than ten. If the next two years are made up of EU exit negotiations then I very much doubt we will start wider world trade deals until the EU exit negotiations are concluding - besides we are still an EU member until then anyway so other bilateral negotiations will still have to remain "informal" .
In short, best estimates are we'll have a free trade deal with the Americans by 2022...not ideal
You are absolutely right, but the point is surely that we don't have a FTA with the US at the moment and happily trade with them. To see how America does "simple" trade deals its worth having a wee look at their first Bilateral trade deal - The 1855 Reciprocity Treaty - think of it as the daddy of them all between a still-British NA territories (i.e Canada) and the United States. Free Trade treaties were a constant source of contention until the C-US FTA of 1988 when it became really very controversial (C-US FTA took four years to negotiate even though there was a 130 year old constantly-evolving basis for it.) C-US FTA eventually spawned NAFTA with the Canadians fighting numerous general elections in the late 80s solely debating free trade. Even with very fair wind behind it NAFTA (trilateral with Mexico) took another four years to negotiate. Remember it had an immediate predecessor (C-US FTA) and also a 135 year history of constant reciprocal free trade agreements.
So with fair wind behind us and goodwill - based on recent history, four years looks like a likely timeline...but, but, but!
America is a) in an election year b) has a notoriously log jammed legislature c) free trade deals are political dynamite in 2016 and d) the grand-daddy of all problems is that America is currently in late-stage, concluding negotiations of the two most complex, controversial and difficult trade agreements ever conceived - TPP and TTIP (with the extremely controversial ISDS add-on). We were on board with TTIP and now are not. So when POTUS said "back of the queue" he wasn't being dismissive - he was merely pointing out that the American legislative branch is still up to its eyes in far, far bigger, far, far more important trade deals (TPP and TTIP) to then drop everything and start negotiation with an economy smaller than California. Please keep in mind that "the special relationship" isn't a one-way street - its just that traffic rarely goes in the opposite direction!
So the best case scenario? Its going to take more than four years and less than ten. If the next two years are made up of EU exit negotiations then I very much doubt we will start wider world trade deals until the EU exit negotiations are concluding - besides we are still an EU member until then anyway so other bilateral negotiations will still have to remain "informal" .
In short, best estimates are we'll have a free trade deal with the Americans by 2022...not ideal
Furthermore TTIP is being negotiated to accommodate the requirements of 28 states, as you say, so surely having our own agreement which more accurately and suitably accommodates the requirements of only two G7 nations will be better and quicker than TTIP (still 50:50 whether it will happen) has been anyway?
loafer123 said:
You are absolutely right, but the point is surely that we don't have a FTA with the US at the moment and happily trade with them.
Furthermore TTIP is being negotiated to accommodate the requirements of 28 states, as you say, so surely having our own agreement which more accurately and suitably accommodates the requirements of only two G7 nations will be better and quicker than TTIP (still 50:50 whether it will happen) has been anyway?
One would hope this would be the case in a logical world (i.e. just take TTIP and cross of 27 names!) But that's just not how complex inter-governmental and international binding agreements work. For them to be resistant to legal challenge, be workable in all expected scenarios and be actually beneficial to each economy they generally need to start from scratch and be very rigorously developed. I really wish that this was made clear prior to our referendum so that there may have been some political impetus within party manifestos to prepare adequately for a potential Brexit if it was to ever occur. I have heard a counter argument that the UK government didn't want to contemplate Brexit so did nothing. We prepare for plenty of other bad scenarios that we don't want to happen (massive climate-change induced flooding, nuclear terrorism etc etc) So why on earth are we so ill-prepared for an entirely probable scenario that we now face. Furthermore TTIP is being negotiated to accommodate the requirements of 28 states, as you say, so surely having our own agreement which more accurately and suitably accommodates the requirements of only two G7 nations will be better and quicker than TTIP (still 50:50 whether it will happen) has been anyway?
No amount of telling ourselves it'll be easy will change the fact that it will be the very furthest possible point from easy and an even further point from certain.
MrADC said:
why on earth are we so ill-prepared for an entirely probable scenario that we now face.
As I understand it, edicts were issued to the Civil Service that no consideration was to be given to the net effect of Brexit. Admission that it was even possible would be considered failure.MrADC said:
Jockman said:
Do you feel there was deliberate intent by those drawing up the Lisbon Treaty to ensure that there are no provisions for this?
In effect, once a country serves A50 there is nothing to say it cannot be withdrawn at any stage in the 2 year window.
Any attempt by European Countries to undertake radical reform in the interim surely plays into the hands of the Leave vote? Negotiations with Scotland again play into the hands of the Leave vote. If more than just idle gossip, why would they do that?
The UK triggering it and then rowing back and try to withdraw notification is not covered in Article 50 except by the cryptic references to "re-joining" - which means "invoke article 50 and if you change your mind it means immediately losing the UK £5 billion rebate" (which is £96 million per week if we are to keep within the spirit of the current debate!!)In effect, once a country serves A50 there is nothing to say it cannot be withdrawn at any stage in the 2 year window.
Any attempt by European Countries to undertake radical reform in the interim surely plays into the hands of the Leave vote? Negotiations with Scotland again play into the hands of the Leave vote. If more than just idle gossip, why would they do that?
Edited by Jockman on Sunday 3rd July 23:12
Jockman said:
So to be clear, there is NO provision for withdrawal of A50 once it is submitted. Nor is there any substantive obstacle for doing so other than your personal interpretation of what the consequences would potentially be?
My understanding (rather than interpretation) is that once invoked withdrawal of notice means re-joining after either 24 months or a new agreement within that timescale - meaning a nice shiny new Treaty of Accession, possibly quickly cooked up in a grand Brussels fudge.Edited by Jockman on Sunday 3rd July 23:12
Jockman said:
So to be clear, there is NO provision for withdrawal of A50 once it is submitted. Nor is there any substantive obstacle for doing so other than your personal interpretation of what the consequences would potentially be?
Covered here Edited by Jockman on Sunday 3rd July 23:12
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/...
s2art said:
Its called hyperbole. Its a relatively short time. Note that the US senators are already setting up the scene for a bilateral trade deal with the UK.
Same as few months for usa or can and bs about article50? You type some bizarre opinions and present them as facts. No idea why.Of course they are. As much as the support is appreciated if you think that they are not going to exploit any opportunity, I'll suggest that you'd be very wrong. It's simple business not 'special-relationship'.
jjlynn27 said:
...sadly a not widely read document! However the two eminent QCs who wrote it specifically side stepped the political effects and consequences on the legal processes surrounding withdrawal from the EU (or withdrawal from withdrawal!). So while EU Treaty Articles and Protocols are legal documents, they are primarily political and that is unfortunately the unknowable quagmire we're in. If we invoke we're off the political and legal charts and where there is no legal framework, politicians will have no choice but to make one - and use qualified majority voting for it.
Reports authors - "experts in the field of EU law: Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers". . . . What do they know?, do they not know how sick we all are of experts (according to Mr Gove)
jjlynn27 said:
Jockman said:
So to be clear, there is NO provision for withdrawal of A50 once it is submitted. Nor is there any substantive obstacle for doing so other than your personal interpretation of what the consequences would potentially be?
Covered here Edited by Jockman on Sunday 3rd July 23:12
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/...
jjlynn27 said:
Jockman said:
Useful link - thanks.
Welcome. Surprisingly easy read too.Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed?
10. We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to
withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to
withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal
agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect,
however, withdrawal was final. Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear
that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example,
if there is a change of Government.”10 Professor Wyatt supported this view
with the following legal analysis:
“There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord
with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush
out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50
to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo.
That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind
after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you
would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join
again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that
you are entitled to change your mind.”
MrADC said:
...However the two eminent QCs who wrote it specifically side stepped the political effects and consequences on the legal processes surrounding withdrawal from the EU (or withdrawal from withdrawal!).
No they didn't. They believe they would be considerable but possible, especially with a change of Govt.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff