Nope. Its about aligning with the highest standards. In this case, it just so happens that one side does not want to commit to retaining equally high (or higher) standards. The EU’s stance: WTO rules, then.
That’s the EU goal, for the sake of the analogy for demanding regulatory alignment, China wants to reduce its cost of production
Then China retains its current level of access to the EU market. The Chinese stance has no bearing on EU current EU exports since they already meet the lower Chinese standards. Simply put, the EU has nothing to lose under status quo.
You are only looking at trade in one direction, China wants to reduce its high cost for exports to the EU, the EU on the other hand would like to turn a deficit into a surplus, to better compete in the market.China may say the cost to do that is regulatory alignment
It a pretty simple analogy and by your fierce reaction to it you too are against ceding regulatory alignment to another country if they do demand
That’s the only thing we are debating on a hypothetical China/EU FTA
The UK wants a free trade agreement with the US. Agriculture - particularly meat - is a key stumbling block. The US appears to be making that the price of an FTA - the price of preferential access.
Your comparison only holds if the EU desperately wants a UK-US style FTA with China. We both know that isn’t the case. In the US-UK case it’s different. The UK needs a US trade deal just to strengthen its negotiating position with the EU.
The US is sufficiently less concerned about securing a trade deal in the short term than the UK is. It’s worst case is (what has long been a perfectly acceptable) status quo. That means it doesn’t need an FTA as much as the UK. Certainly not in the short term. Or to put it more directly, it can afford to wait out UK resistance to its demands, and see if the UK will cave.
Its not like it is a must have for the UK. Currently as you know there is no FTA with the US and what trade agreements are in place the US/UK has agreed to a MRA when the EU/US MRA no longer applies to the UK.
I don’t think HMG will set a timeline for negotiations to be finalised as the UK has a trade surplus with the US.
It’s the US who want to get the EU’s market share within the UK. Another subtle reason why the EU is demanding regulatory alignment, for the EU its economic dominance and protect it from more competition
At the end of the day we are never going to agree with each other s the hypothetical China demands of regulatory alignment is all moot as you like to say this will be the last I comment on it as its off topic
The only way that argument would work is if the EU risks losing preferential access to 45-50% of its main export market and desperately needs access to China to make up for it. Thing is, they haven’t. Brexit will be significant - but the UK doesn’t account for 45-50% of EU exports. The impact of no deal just isn’t the same. That’s where the relative discrepancy in negotiating power lies. The EU thinks it can absorb a no deal with relatively lower disruption than the UK.
I have no doubt that the EU can absorb no deal if it can ride through the latest bout of financial crises with corona and if its members can agree on new budgets less the UK income.
But I also think the UK will prevail as well on no deal, will it be a smooth ride hell No.
Corona can actually be viewed as a blessing in disguise. The UK has a much needed chance to reform to make itself more competitive on the global market place being tied to the EU was just holding back that reform
Being sovereign gives the UK much more room to manoeuvre to take advantage of the most likely new trading conditions across the globe once everyone has a chance to sit back and take stock on how the corona has impacted world trade.
Yes, the economics are bad for both. Remainers have been pointing that out for years. But Brexiteers put political considerations above economic considerations.
Yep sovereignty comes at a price but I think it’s worth it
Bit daft - and outright hypocritical - then, to criticize the EU for responding by putting non-economic considerations ahead of economics considerations.
No not really if the EU actually did not respect the wishes of the electorate in it deals with the UK from the beginning it tried everything in its power to either bind the UK to the EU hold a 2nd referenda or revoke anything but an independent UK
ElPistolero wrote:Brexiteers started this nonsense. The EU has always said everyone would be worse off as a result of it. Bit late to complain about it now.
No one is complaining most of us are rejoicing in the prospect that we will finally be free from the EU with or without a trade deal
Uh, no. The EU isn’t demanding regulatory alignment in all scenarios. It is only demanding regulatory alignment IF the UK wants preferential access to the EU single market. If the UK wants to go WTO, the regulatory alignment requirement ceases to exist.
The victim complex is really weird.
Nothing weird in it at all, the UK wants to retain its sovereignty in all aspects of the trade deal but have the best deal it can achieve something that all sovereign nations have.