On the flip side, they will have 3 years of being a "vassal" state with little to no say on what the EU is doing, they might decide that its not so bad being ruled by the EU.
The EU of course will not have to cater to the English whims or running off the reservation, so a win win for all involved.
In other words, the UK incurs all the costs of Brexit while enjoying none of the benefits. How is that a win/win?
The UK Economy doesn´t get wrecked seems like a pretty big win to me...
Remember that the prospect of the full UK government assessment of the "no deal" effects becoming public was greeted with "If that goes public, we can forget Brexit".....
From what I am hearing from my British friends, what they voted for and what they want now is that as of November 1st of this year, no EU authority, law, regulation bureaucrat or whatever has jurisdiction over the UK. The UK must have the right to pass any laws, sign any treaties, basically do whatever it wants as of 2019-11-01. Theresa May's deal did not provide that. Boris' latest proposal of "May's deal minus the backstop" does not provide that. The only thing that does that at this point is no-deal.
so your British friends have no grasp on reality. The EU membership is one of over 100 treaties that the UK signed and ratified that all limit the UKs ability to do that or put it under the Jurisdiction of Non-UK courts and arbitration panels.
I believe that was Boris's intention to negotiate such a deal or something pretty close to it, which the EU would have reluctantly agreed to at the last minute (October 30th). But the chances of such a deal flew out the window when the remoaners pulled their stunts last week.
The deal that BoJo wants is legally impossible for both the EU and the UK. So that is just another unicorn farting rainbows.
Negotiating 101 for anything - whether for a treaty or buying a washing machine: The other side must know that you are willing to walk out if you don't get what you want.
Absolute hogwash. You can bluster all you want if your negotiating partner knows you can not get what you want from any other "supplier"..... you can not turn to someone else to get a trade deal with the EU.
Its like sitting with a customers purchaser after his company just spend 1+ years and a 7 digit amount of money to get a solution certified, and he tries to negotiate better prices with the usual "we talk to other suppliers as well" line..... if you don´t have a dual source strategy, and dual certification, from the start that ain´t happening, and even then you can only "threaten" with the relative volume share being lower if you don´t move on price, but even that only works to the point where we say "no" because the volume gets to small. ....
Telling your negotiating team in public that no-deal is not an option completely scuppers your chances at getting any sort of reasonable deal. Imagine taking your wife to the Porsche dealership, and she tells you in front of the salesman that she will divorce you if she doesn't get that shiny 911 Turbo on display. Somehow I don't think you'll get any discount.
.... because he can not go to another Porsche Dealership without her after? The sales guy will not just assume the threat is empty? He will not ask himself if she could possibly be such a good lay? That he may be happy to be rid of her? That making a really good offer may get him to make a snap decision on the spot?
Sure, No-deal will be disruptive and painful for many. But the pain will be short,
I applause your optimism..... you really think all those plans and investments drawn up in the time of uncertainty will be changed once certainty comes back? Nope. Whats gone is gone, and getting it back is about as fruitful as getting coal jobs back....
as all the uncertainties will be removed
the uncertainty is removed after all new trade deals are certified by the WTO..... 10 years is a good ballpark figure for that.
and the UK can go on from there with a solid legal base and not having to answer to anyone.
aside of course to everybody else they have international treaties with, and of course, just having added a gazillion of those with all those trade deals, and most, if not all, will contain some pretty specific rules about what the UK can´t and can do in the future. Non-tariff trade barriers are usually the much bigger issue in trade negotiations that quotas and tariffs. The US government is pretty much on record that the UK has to adjust lots of legislation to accommodate US goods for a trade deal. "Not answer to anyone" ... haha.
That there is no FTA between the US and the EU is in part due to the UK, and others, not wanting to mellow customer protections. Go figure.
BTW, I've always thought the best road forward would be a worldwide free trade bloc consisting of the UK, USA, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea and maybe one or two others. These countries would have to have relatively similar labor costs and standards of living - none of this crap of sucking in a couple of poor countries to use for cheap labor. And it should remain a free trade deal only - no common governing bodies. If Canada wants to sell to Switzerland, the goods must comply to Swiss standards, end of story.
There is no FTA without some sort of governing body and any FTA will remove just those "If Canada wants to sell to Switzerland, the goods must comply to Swiss standards" non-tariff barriers in the first step, because talking tariffs and quotas doesn´t make sense before that is solved. Consequently WTO rules don´t even allow that kind of FTA as it just a neat trick to get around most favored nation status.
GATT Art.XXIV, 8b wrote:
A free-trade area shall be understood to mean a group of two or more customs territories in which the duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce (except, where necessary, those permitted under Articles XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV and XX) are eliminated on substantially all the trade between the constituent territories in products originating in such territories.
Any organization that takes 6-8 months just to assemble a team and then expects negotiations to last for years is bureaucracy out of control. I've been involved in multi-billion dollar mergers which are much more complex (you are dealing with actually merging operations, finances, employees, distribution and retail networks etc) which are generally negotiated from start to finish in a few months. These government negotiators are already planning on a long series of "negotiation sessions" in nice places, spending 95% of their time and (your) money on enjoying the local spa facilities with their wives/mistresses and 5% of their time working.
6-8 month preparation and only a few years to conclude an FTA are amazingly fast and only possible between places that are already closely aligned.
I can write a free trade agreement on one page. Neither side will apply tarriffs or quotas on goods/services originating in the other country. Any complex good (automobiles etc) with > 75% domestic components will be treated as 100% domestic. Any disputes will be resolved in the courts of the country where the invoice for the goods/services was issued.
And if you can find anyone to sign an FTA like that, you will also find that just about any WTO member would file concerns, and demand the same treatment, about as quick as you have ever seen diplomacy move.
Last edited by tommy1808
on Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
This Singature is a safe space......