How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

It's difficult to disagree with this.

I would have rather we stated in, clearly.

But (cliche time) we are where we are and whilst I might not be a fan of some of the language and tone used some of the time (the whole "they need us more" vibe of a lot of it) I have shifted position that if we are where we are it doesn't seem to make sense to let the EU dictate our position.

Whether Boris and his teams position is one I agree with is a different matter, but it does seem slightly odd at this point to see the EU making demands about regulation and alignment.

Gove is one my dirty little pleasures as I can't bring myself to dislike him as much as I probably should and I do think a lot of what he said actually made sense.

Of course the counter to that is it will be interesting to see if Johnson adopts the same "no deal" stance when negotiations with the US and other countries start.

On your last point, I don't see other countries insisting upon the same political levers.

They are used to not starting from that point and so it's not a "red line" that they'd typically even raise.

The reason for our current position is that the EU are not yet thinking of us as a third party. They still don't like that we've left and I suspect still think that we accepted these rules before therefore why wouldn't we now. They are clinging to remainer panic about harmed trade.

It might serve both sides better to start on WTO and revisit this a period down the line as a genuine third party if politics cannot be put to one side. Economically that would not help either side and would be a wasted opportunity. But it may end up being the only way to get sense to the fore.

From a UK perspective the implications of accepting the nonsense the EU are setting out are grave. It cannot happen.

I'd hope they wouldn't insist on it either.

But it will be interesting to see what the position is when it's the likes of Trump and not Barnier insisting on things if they should do so.

Kind of feels a bit of a minor issue today with all the other stuff going on i.e. most peoples pensions are temporarily worth 10% less seems more important than posturing.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

The narrative from the BJ government is that the Canadian FTA is just an agreement on tarrifs and trade. Most newspapers are to lazy to challenge that.

For those interested here is a summary by chapter of the agreement.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ce...

It covers a lot of things on regulatory cooperation, competition, state subsidies, etc, etc.

The agreement is also not a stand alone agreement but build on a number of previous agreements which remain in force.

You have to look at the EU website to find them.

Where in any of those elements does Canada relinquish control fully for the EU to solely decide what the rules and regs regarding those things entail?

[Sway]

Earthdweller said:

Sway said:

Currently, 80% of tariff reciepts are handed over to the EU.

So, a 75% drop in tariffs leads to a 20% increase in HMRC revenues. Add in the likely secondary uplifts in consumer spending (always nice having more disposable due to basic foodstuffs getting cheaper) and there's another uptick in government revenues - VAT and Corp Tax.

And the effect on the EU ?

I can think of a few things where it's likely under that scenario (reduced MFN tariff and no FTA with the EU) where EU producers will be unlikely to maintain their price competivity...

[hutchst]

JNW1 said:

Which all may be true. However, the EU are now saying they won't even offer us the equivalent of the Canada FTA despite previously suggesting a Canada Plus agreement as a feasible way forward. So what's changed since Mr Barnier prepared his famous staircase slide? Geographic proximity to the EU seems to be one excuse why a Canada-type agreement apparently isn't possible but I think he'll find the UK is located in exactly the same place it was when he suggested his Canada Plus solution back in 2017...

I beg to differ. The earth's crust is always in motion, and by the time the EU gets its arse into gear in these negotiations we are quite likely to be as far away from Calais as Gander is today.

[crankedup]

DeepEnd said:

amusingduck said:

It's just an attempt to invalidate the concept of the UK having control over it's alignment/divergence via the means of "if you can't list every divergence upfront, theres no point in having that control"

It's not very convincing.

It’s arguably a bit more pragmatic than that.

As with any trade deal you need to understand what sort of alignment you have in mind. This is not really that controversial when you think about it practically and it is not helpful to wind up the angry brigade to think it is.

You don’t enter a trade deal saying “I’ll do whatever I want thanks”.

I get that this is posturing but it’s mainly for the angry brigade and won’t help much with the EU.

I think we do need a view on where we want to misalign and then work through the consequences - we can always diverge more later, we will have that choice to rip up any trade deal we want and renegotiate. They maybe permanently under negotiation and evolution.

I agree with your. intention that it’s an effort to placate the ‘angry brigade’, by that I assume that you refer to those who wished to remain within the EU.

[crankedup]

hutchst said:

JNW1 said:

Which all may be true. However, the EU are now saying they won't even offer us the equivalent of the Canada FTA despite previously suggesting a Canada Plus agreement as a feasible way forward. So what's changed since Mr Barnier prepared his famous staircase slide? Geographic proximity to the EU seems to be one excuse why a Canada-type agreement apparently isn't possible but I think he'll find the UK is located in exactly the same place it was when he suggested his Canada Plus solution back in 2017...

I beg to differ. The earth's crust is always in motion, and by the time the EU gets its arse into gear in these negotiations we are quite likely to be as far away from Calais as Gander is today.

very good last para!

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Sway said:

Currently, 80% of tariff reciepts are handed over to the EU.

So, a 75% drop in tariffs leads to a 20% increase in HMRC revenues. Add in the likely secondary uplifts in consumer spending (always nice having more disposable due to basic foodstuffs getting cheaper) and there's another uptick in government revenues - VAT and Corp Tax.

Don't forget under WTO, tariffs will apply to EU imports.

Hasn't the Government already published its WTO tariffs, are they being reduced?

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Friday 28th February 11:16

[stongle]

Sway said:

Mrr T said:

The narrative from the BJ government is that the Canadian FTA is just an agreement on tarrifs and trade. Most newspapers are to lazy to challenge that.

For those interested here is a summary by chapter of the agreement.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ce...

It covers a lot of things on regulatory cooperation, competition, state subsidies, etc, etc.

The agreement is also not a stand alone agreement but build on a number of previous agreements which remain in force.

You have to look at the EU website to find them.

Where in any of those elements does Canada relinquish control fully for the EU to solely decide what the rules and regs regarding those things entail?

It doesn’t and lots of those things such as cooperation have been proposed by the UK government. Where we have a red line is aligning and being a future rule taker. It’s not a hard concept to grasp.

Given the frequency that EU states break their own rules on tax, subsidy and environmental standards - I’m increasingly puzzled at what all the fuss is about. We may as well sign up to everything and then do whatever we want like RoEU.

And when they come complaining, they can be met by the normal remain argument of sticking fingers in ears and singling “lalalala” at the top of ones voice. It’s what they’ve been listening to for 4years already.

[Sway]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sway said:

Currently, 80% of tariff reciepts are handed over to the EU.

So, a 75% drop in tariffs leads to a 20% increase in HMRC revenues. Add in the likely secondary uplifts in consumer spending (always nice having more disposable due to basic foodstuffs getting cheaper) and there's another uptick in government revenues - VAT and Corp Tax.

Don't forget under WTO tariffs will apply to EU imports.

Hasn't the Government already published it's WTO tariffs, are they being reduced?

We choose our "WTO tariffs" - we published a set of schedules for the event of No WTA in Jan. The Gov have announced that they're working on a better, longer term set of schedules for post Dec, irrespective of a FTA being in place. The principles they've said they're working to, is to slash tariffs for things we don't produce indigenously as that's merely a brake on our productivity and increases the cost of living for normal people.

[soupdragon1]

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/britain-is-unco...

Great piece from the Irish Times in retort to the drivel spouted in an article by the Spectator and Darren Grimes talking cack on twitter (nothing new there though).

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Sway said:

We choose our "WTO tariffs" - we published a set of schedules for the event of No WTA in Jan. The Gov have announced that they're working on a better, longer term set of schedules for post Dec, irrespective of a FTA being in place. The principles they've said they're working to, is to slash tariffs for things we don't produce indigenously as that's merely a brake on our productivity and increases the cost of living for normal people.

Which brings it back to whether you believe they will or not.

You do, I don't.

[Sway]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sway said:

We choose our "WTO tariffs" - we published a set of schedules for the event of No WTA in Jan. The Gov have announced that they're working on a better, longer term set of schedules for post Dec, irrespective of a FTA being in place. The principles they've said they're working to, is to slash tariffs for things we don't produce indigenously as that's merely a brake on our productivity and increases the cost of living for normal people.

Which brings it back to whether you believe they will or not.

You do, I don't.

Will be easy to revisit in a couple of months..

As explained, it's an easy PR and economic win, including for the Exchequer. Plus it'll add some pressure for the EU FTA, for example from Spanish citrus farmers...

[Tuna]

DeepEnd said:

It’s arguably a bit more pragmatic than that.

As with any trade deal you need to understand what sort of alignment you have in mind. This is not really that controversial when you think about it practically and it is not helpful to wind up the angry brigade to think it is.

Does it help you to think of anyone who disagrees with you as 'angry'. It's like a sort of pre-emptive ad hom from you.

That you keep on trying to reduce the proposition to 'just' an alignment of regulations is typically disingenuous, or shows a complete lack of understanding of the positions stated by both sides. I gave an example of the issues with that position, and listed the full breadth of economic influence the EU is asking to maintain over the UK - not surprising that you're ignoring that in favour of flinging mud at your imaginary angry adversaries.

[andymadmak]

soupdragon1 said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/britain-is-unco...

Great piece from the Irish Times in retort to the drivel spouted in an article by the Spectator and Darren Grimes talking cack on twitter (nothing new there though).

Great piece? Not really. But it does try (and fail) to create a smokescreen around the fact that Ireland has been asked to stump up more to the EU, whilst having it's vital subsidies to farmers cut. That is the reality that Ireland faces.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Sway said:

Will be easy to revisit in a couple of months..

As explained, it's an easy PR and economic win, including for the Exchequer. Plus it'll add some pressure for the EU FTA, for example from Spanish citrus farmers...

Not sure I follow that.

We don't grow oranges so reduce our import tariff to zero. Why would the Spanish orange grower care if there is an UK:EU FTA?

[NJH]

Which of the set of current legislation that reads in EU directives into UK law will be maintained by guarantees in the 'new' treaty which will bring the FTA into force?

[Sway]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sway said:

Will be easy to revisit in a couple of months..

As explained, it's an easy PR and economic win, including for the Exchequer. Plus it'll add some pressure for the EU FTA, for example from Spanish citrus farmers...

Not sure I follow that.

We don't grow oranges so reduce our import tariff to zero. Why would the Spanish orange grower care if there is an UK:EU FTA?

They'll care if RoW oranges are several percent cheaper, that's a lower landed price than the Spanish can produce for - and the EU are being difficult in agreeing a FTA...

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Sway said:

They'll care if RoW oranges are several percent cheaper, that's a lower landed price than the Spanish can produce for - and the EU are being difficult in agreeing a FTA...

I still don't get your argument.

If the UK aren't going to charge import tariffs it doesn't matter whether or not there is a UK:EU FTA, the Spanish orange grower will be competing against the ROW farmer without tariff interference.

Or are you claiming the UK:EU FTA will require the UK to impose tariffs on ROW oranges?

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Friday 28th February 12:58

[Sway]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sway said:

They'll care if RoW oranges are several percent cheaper, that's a lower landed price than the Spanish can produce for - and the EU are being difficult in agreeing a FTA...

I still don't get your argument.

If the UK aren't going to charge import tariffs it doesn't matter whether or not there is a UK:EU FTA or not, the Spanish orange grower will be competing against the ROW farmer without tariff interference.

Or are you claiming the UK:EU FTA will require the UK to impose tariffs on ROW oranges?

They don't have to be slashed to zero. Spanish citrus are more expensive than North African citrus, even with their CAP subsidies.

I'm sure if we had the tariff at say 5% there'd be a strong push from Spanish citrus farmers for theirs to be operating at 0% - and either way would be a big drop in price for consumers.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Sway said:

They don't have to be slashed to zero. Spanish citrus are more expensive than North African citrus, even with their CAP subsidies.

I'm sure if we had the tariff at say 5% there'd be a strong push from Spanish citrus farmers for theirs to be operating at 0% - and either way would be a big drop in price for consumers.

Huh?

If there is a big drop in price for consumers that must be via the ROW oranges plus 5% tariff being cheaper than now, ie Spanish oranges with zero tariff.

Spanish orange grower is still screwed so we can have cheaper oranges.