UK Demands to have veto over EU future;
"As an example, the UK wants to have input into any future application by a third party to join the EU, and for the EU to take into consideration UK interests in any such negotiations. This goes beyond audacious.https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... avid-frost
If EU wanted any similar with UK....
Yeah I saw that awhile ago and had a chuckle, nothing ventured nothing gained.But it does make sense to a degree in what conditions the EU expects a trade deal looks like. I think its more to do with grandfathering existing members into the trade agreement , any future member can in theory compete against the UK and reduce trade between the two if we accept the Terms offered by the EU
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained"
Talking about overestimating your own importance!
The problem Brexiteers have is that the EU didn't implode upon Brexit as they genuinely expected; on the contrary: it's very likely to expand further in future.
And that brings 2 dire consequences for the UK which it didn't envisage prior to the referendum:
1- Any trade agreement the UK signs with the EU (at 27) will automatically be transposable to all future EU members too.
The UK could and likely will get into a situation where it thinks it has negotiated a balanced mechanism of mutual market access, yet -over time- will see that balance being lost because future new EU memberstates will start to take benefit of the UK market acces granted to them under an EU-UK FTA, without any particular reciprocal advantage to the UK.
2- Even if the UK manages to negotiate a zero tariff deal with the EU, it is still at risk of losing its current export markets in the SM to competitors from other third countries which are currently out of the SM still, but which may decide to join and thus benefit from totally frictionless trade as EU memberstate at that point in time: the risk of being leapfrogged in the queue so to say.
But these are just the logical consequences of Brexit Michel Barnier has always warned about!
The UK was free to leave, but it can not expect the EU to keep considering its national interest still, nor others not to fill the gaping void left by it!
Besides, this risk now suddenly discovered by Brexiteers actually exist in many other FTAs they hope to conclude too!
The POTUS is on record to be willing to buy Greenland: image he succeeds after the UK signed a FTA which will likely cover agricultural and fishery products, assuming such would be fairly limited due to the transatlantic transportation costs involved... Now, fish from Greenland would suddenly change all that.
Shouldn't the UK protect its fishing communities proactively by negotiating a veto over which territories can join the USA in future too?
That will go down will in Washington, I'm sure....
Same problem exist with trade deals with ASEAN, Mercosur etc... there too, tine little UK doesn't really know who they are signing the deal with in future, and will have close to zero leverage to renegotiate later: it proofs the entire trade vision of the UK is built on an outdated world view of static nationstates, whereas reality of today is that of dynamic trading blocks and economic superpowers.