UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I understand Dom has left instructions for the next 2 years

Yes, "Don't panic!"

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes, "Don't panic!"

More likely "so long, suckers - I've got mine!"

[GrimUpNorth]

The thought of selling NI down the road for a 'true' Brexit is probably more than Bozza can handle, particularly with President Biden leaning on him in the background. Looks like Dom and Lee couldn't stomach what they see as a sell out deal with the EU - strange because pretty much everyone else could see the only possible endgame with Donald gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

Bozza has form for flip flopping his position on the EU - maybe he's realised there's still time for one more flip (or is it a flop??).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

The thought of selling NI down the road for a 'true' Brexit is probably more than Bozza can handle, particularly with President Biden leaning on him in the background. Looks like Dom and Lee couldn't stomach what they see as a sell out deal with the EU - strange because pretty much everyone else could see the only possible endgame with Donald gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

Bozza has form for flip flopping his position on the EU - maybe he's realised there's still time for one more flip (or is it a flop??).

That was pretty much my analysis. Boris may well be at a road fork over the Brexit deal. But we'll see in a few days.

[1andrew1]

EU no longer the World's largest trading bloc. And more evidence that World trade is orienting towards such blocs.

Fifteen countries have formed the world's largest trading bloc, covering nearly a third of the global economy.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is made up of 10 Southeast Asian countries, as well as South Korea, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand...

"Under the current global circumstances, the fact the RCEP has been signed after eight years of negotiations brings a ray of light and hope amid the clouds," said Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.

Mr Li described the agreement as "a victory of multilateralism and free trade".

India was also part of the negotiations, but it pulled out last year over concerns that lower tariffs could hurt local producers.

Signatories of the deal said the door remained open for India to join in the future.

Members of the RCEP make up nearly a third of the world's population and account for 29% of global gross domestic product.

The new free trade bloc will be bigger than both the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the European Union.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-54949260

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

EU no longer the World's largest trading bloc. And more evidence that World trade is orienting towards such blocs.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-54949260

I’d love to be part of a trading bloc. But the EU isn’t just a trading bloc is it?

And that is precisely the point of Brexit. The EU was sold to British voters as “the common market” in 1975 but it was more than that even then. It would be shocking if anyone participating in this discussion were still to be labouring under the illusion that the EU is a trading bloc. It certainly doesn’t describe itself in those terms.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

EU no longer the World's largest trading bloc. And more evidence that World trade is orienting towards such blocs.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-54949260

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100114853.pdf

TAKING ACCOUNT OF the different levels of development among the
Parties, the need for appropriate forms of flexibility, including provision
for special and differential treatment, especially for Cambodia, Lao PDR,
Myanmar, and Viet Nam as appropriate, and additional flexibility for
Least Developed Country Parties;

CONSIDERING the need to facilitate the increasing participation of
Least Developed Country Parties in this Agreement so that they can
more effectively implement their obligations under this Agreement and
take advantage of the benefits from this Agreement, including expansion
of their trade and investment opportunities and participation in regional
and global supply chains;

The term 'Level Playing Field' doesn't appear in the RCEP.
The nearest I can find is what is quoted above.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100114853.pdf



The term 'Level Playing Field' doesn't appear in the RCEP.
The nearest I can find is what is quoted above.

Yeah, that's why India pulled out of the agreement last year. They were concerned about dumping from China

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’d love to be part of a trading bloc. But the EU isn’t just a trading bloc is it?

Indeed, it's got other functions too.

As countries trade closely together in a trading bloc, it's inevitable that they will become closer so it will be fascinating to watch how these new trading blocs develop compared to the EU and other trading blocs. They may act to demonstrate how a different model can be as successful as the EU has been.

On another note, I'd love a Canada-style deal with...Canada. At the moment, that seems unlikely to happen soon.

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Yeah, that's why India pulled out of the agreement last year. They were concerned about dumping from China

I can see why the absence of a level playing field in the agreement would prevent countries signing up to it. In this instance, I also note that India and China are not on friendly terms due to a border dispute so this is a factor too.
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/10/0...bulent-future/

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Indeed, it's got other functions too.

As countries trade closely together in a trading bloc, it's inevitable that they will become closer so it will be fascinating to watch how these new trading blocs develop compared to the EU and other trading blocs. They may act to demonstrate how a different model can be as successful as the EU has been.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the whole purpose of the European project, which was to bind France and Germany so tightly together that it would be impossible for either of them to start another war. They always were, and remain, at the heart of something that was never, from day one, supposed to be just a trading bloc. French agriculture and German manufacturing were intended to create a symbiosis between the two countries and the ties were always intended to become political. Inevitably the rest of the continent has been drawn in to this and as long as they understand what they are in and assent to it that’s their business.

If after all the arguing and debating over the EU on this forum and in other places, you still don’t get this basic point, you’re never really going to understand why some of us campaigned against U.K. membership of the EU for decades and why we remain deaf to complaints about short (or even medium term) disruption to our trading patterns. Involvement in the EU isn’t about cheap out-of-season strawberries, tulips from Amsterdam or our ability to export cheese. What it is about is the ability to determine British laws and international treaties in our national interest. This is why fishing rights have become such a massive issue despite their modest economic impact. The right to control who fishes in our exclusive economic zone is a highly visible symbol of our departure from a system that is designed, in the long run, to create a single federal territory.

It is vanishingly unlikely that RCEP or indeed NAFTA or Mercosur will ever get anywhere near the level of integration the EU has today, because that is not the objective of any of those organisations.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Indeed, it's got other functions too.

As countries trade closely together in a trading bloc, it's inevitable that they will become closer so it will be fascinating to watch how these new trading blocs develop compared to the EU and other trading blocs. They may act to demonstrate how a different model can be as successful as the EU has been.

On another note, I'd love a Canada-style deal with...Canada. At the moment, that seems unlikely to happen soon.

<SNIP>

As countries trade closely together in a trading bloc, it's inevitable that they will become closer so it will be fascinating to watch how these new trading blocs develop compared to the EU and other trading blocs. They may act to demonstrate how a different model can be as successful as the EU has been.

Are you serious? Australia/NZ will become "closer" to China, Malaysia, etc? Certainly not in the EU sense as Chris has pointed out.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Chris

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the whole purpose of the European project, which was to bind France and Germany so tightly together that it would be impossible for either of them to start another war. They always were, and remain, at the heart of something that was never, from day one, supposed to be just a trading bloc. French agriculture and German manufacturing were intended to create a symbiosis between the two countries and the ties were always intended to become political. Inevitably the rest of the continent has been drawn in to this and as long as they understand what they are in and assent to it that’s their business.

If after all the arguing and debating over the EU on this forum and in other places, you still don’t get this basic point, you’re never really going to understand why some of us campaigned against U.K. membership of the EU for decades and why we remain deaf to complaints about short (or even medium term) disruption to our trading patterns. Involvement in the EU isn’t about cheap out-of-season strawberries, tulips from Amsterdam or our ability to export cheese. What it is about is the ability to determine British laws and international treaties in our national interest. This is why fishing rights have become such a massive issue despite their modest economic impact. The right to control who fishes in our exclusive economic zone is a highly visible symbol of our departure from a system that is designed, in the long run, to create a single federal territory.
It is vanishingly unlikely that RCEP or indeed NAFTA or Mercosur will ever get anywhere near the level of integration the EU has today, because that is not the objective of any of those organisations.

Well said.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

And that is precisely the point of Brexit. The EU was sold to British voters as “the common market” in 1975 but it was more than that even then. It would be shocking if anyone participating in this discussion were still to be labouring under the illusion that the EU is a trading bloc. It certainly doesn’t describe itself in those terms.

The EU states that it is the "Largest trade block in the world." Of course, it is more than just a trading bloc and no one is pretending otherwise, not the EU or me, certainly. Numerous people have discussed its evolution in this and other threads. People like Pierre and I weighed all this up at the time and decided that it was in the country's best interests to remain.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the whole purpose of the European project, which was to bind France and Germany so tightly together that it would be impossible for either of them to start another war. They always were, and remain, at the heart of something that was never, from day one, supposed to be just a trading bloc. French agriculture and German manufacturing were intended to create a symbiosis between the two countries and the ties were always intended to become political. Inevitably the rest of the continent has been drawn in to this and as long as they understand what they are in and assent to it that’s their business.

Whilst we agree on its foundation it’s evolved significantly over time and the UK has contributed significantly to it – eg Single Market, State Aid Rules, etc. Seeing it through the lens of a post-war settlement was right once but a more 360 approach is needed in the 21st Century.

Originally Posted by Chris

If after all the arguing and debating over the EU on this forum and in other places, you still don’t get this basic point, you’re never really going to understand why some of us campaigned against U.K. membership of the EU for decades and why we remain deaf to complaints about short (or even medium term) disruption to our trading patterns. Involvement in the EU isn’t about cheap out-of-season strawberries, tulips from Amsterdam or our ability to export cheese. What it is about is the ability to determine British laws and international treaties in our national interest. This is why fishing rights have become such a massive issue despite their modest economic impact. The right to control who fishes in our exclusive economic zone is a highly visible symbol of our departure from a system that is designed, in the long run, to create a single federal territory.

I’m not going to speculate on people’s motives for campaigning against EU membership. But to pretend that not being a member results in only short or medium term economic disruption ignores the gravity of trade and the move towards economic blocs. We’re talking about a long-term reduction in our country’s wealth as well as a short-term reduction in the wealth of the country – acknowledged by Dominic Cummings as being more than the entire contributions that the UK has paid into the EU.

By not being in the bloc, our global influence is also weakened, and that’s assuming the UK remains intact and Scotland and Northern Ireland don’t go their respective ways. Brexit plus We might be able to talk about sovereignty, and for sure, we will probably have control of our fishing waters which contribute less than 1% of GDP. I would venture that’s not just modest, but exceedingly modest! But ultimately, the UK will come down to becoming a rule-taker or not taking part in World trade. The lack of trade deals we have been able to sign demonstrates this.

Originally Posted by Chris

It is vanishingly unlikely that RCEP or indeed NAFTA or Mercosur will ever get anywhere near the level of integration the EU has today, because that is not the objective of any of those organisations.

Agreed, which is why I said it will be interesting to see how the new bloc develops over time. It will be helpful to have a comparison to the EU which has hitherto been the largest trading bloc.