Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
TheGame said:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the 'protectionist racket' stuff comes from. I mean, of course they're protectionist, and I hate that, and I hate that everywhere. But all states and unions are. And most importantly: isn't the whole idea of Brexit to be able to have your own 'protectioniat racket'? Given that, shouldn't Brexiteers more than everyone else appreciate that everyone is like that, and be able to accept it as the natural state of things?

(I know I'm being too rational here for the typical opportunistic and populist political discourse.)

do.ob said:
Nationalists feigning moral outrage that states are are acting self serving.. I bet they'd be the first to object if AZ were to balance their delivery numbers between the UK and EU.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
 
Last edited:
Cheimoon said:
I'm not sure where the 'protectionist racket' stuff comes from. I mean, of course they're protectionist, and I hate that, and I hate that everywhere. But all states and unions are. And most importantly: isn't the whole idea of Brexit to be able to have your own 'protectioniat racket'? Given that, shouldn't Brexiteers more than everyone else appreciate that everyone is like that, and be able to accept it as the natural state of things?
Click to expand...
It's the express. The UK print equivalent of One America Network.
 
Last edited:
UK applying to join Asia-Pacific free trade pact CPTPP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55871373

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-cptpp


Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)


What is the CPTPP?
The CPTPP is a free-trade agreement (FTA) between 11 countries around the Pacific Rim: Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Japan.

When was the CPTPP negotiated?
Negotiations for what was then simply the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) began in March 2010 and concluded on 5 October 2015.
The US was party to those talks, but the election of President Trump in 2016 led to its withdrawal from the agreement before ratification. The remaining 11 participants scrambled to amend the text of the agreement, and the newly renamed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership was signed in March 2018. It came into force in December the same year.

What does the CPTPP do?
The rights and obligations under the CPTPP fall into two categories:
  • Rules: for example, on how countries should make new food safety regulations or whether they can ban the transfer of data to other CPTPP members. These are the same for all CPTPP parties (including any new members that may join).
  • Market access: how far each CPTPP member will cut its tariffs, open up its services markets, liberalise visa conditions for business travellers, and so on. Each member has its own schedules of commitments. In some cases the commitments are offered to all other members, while in others they are restricted to specific negotiating partners.
The CPTPP provides for almost complete liberalisation of tariffs among the participants. Tariffs are retained in only a few highly sensitive areas – for example, Japan keeps tariffs on rice, while Canada’s dairy industry is also protected. It provides a single set of rules of origin, and allows content from all CPTPP countries to be ‘cumulated’. If a good has to have at least 70% ‘CPTPP content’ to qualify for preferential tariffs, for instance, that 70% can come from any combination of CPTPP countries.

Why is the CPTPP important?
The original TPP (including the US) would have been one of the world’s largest economic blocs, accounting for over 30% of world GDP. For this reason, it was thought that it would have been able to exercise of high degree of influence over the rules governing the world economy. In particular, the Obama administration hoped that it could become a vehicle to constrain the rise of China, setting rules for such a large group of countries that China would be compelled to follow them.
The smaller (if more ambitiously named) CPTPP is less significant, but still accounts for a substantial share (about 13%) of world GDP. This could rise, and help the CPTPP become even more important, were the US to come back on board – which Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for November’s US election, has hinted support for.

Can the UK join the CPTPP?
Yes – provided all the existing members agree. Article 30.4 of the agreement makes clear that the CPTPP is open to accession by any state “as the Parties may agree”. It is not necessary for a state to be in the Pacific region to participate.

What would the UK have to do in order to join the CPTPP?
A state that wants to join has to inform the New Zealand government (the depositary of the agreement), which will then inform the other members. The CPTPP Commission then decides whether or not to start an accession process. If it decides to start the process, a working group would be formed. The UK would have to explain to the working group how it was going to comply with the CPTPP rules.
Within 30 days of the first meeting of the working group, the UK would have to submit its market access offers: tariff cuts, lists of service sectors from which it proposed to exclude CPTPP members, and parts of government procurement that would not be open to bids from other CPTPP members. There would then be a process of negotiation. Once all the existing members are satisfied, the Commission would formally invite the UK to become a member.

Is the CPTPP Commission like the European Commission?
Not really. Unlike in the EU, there will be no new ‘CPTPP regulations’ developed over time. The CPTPP Commission is simply a gathering of representatives of CPTPP member states. It meets for short sessions about twice a year to discuss issues arising from the agreement, and to set procedures for the accession of new states and rules of conduct for dispute settlement.
There is no ‘CPTPP Court’ equivalent to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) either: if a dispute arises between the parties, an ad-hoc arbitration panel is convened. If the panel finds that a member state has breached its obligations under the agreement, there are no fines payable (as in the ECJ). Such a state has a choice of four options:
  • Comply with the CPTPP rules as interpreted by the panel.
  • Compensate the offended party through a tariff concession.
  • Compensate the offended party with a cash payment.
  • Accept increased tariffs on its own exports to the offended party.
What would the UK get out of CPTPP membership?
The government has still not conducted an assessment of the economic impact of joining CPTPP. Its most recent policy paper on the subject just gives figures for how much trade the UK does in the region already and what percentage of tariffs would be eliminated under the agreement – which says little about what benefits would actually accrue to the UK.
The benefits of joining the CPTPP are also likely to depend on how successful the UK is at replacing, or ‘rolling over’, the existing FTAs it enjoys as an EU member state. The EU has signed FTAs with all of the CPTPP countries except Malaysia, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand, which the UK is therefore party to until the transition period ends. If the UK is able to roll over these existing EU–CPTPP agreements – admittedly far from guaranteed given the cool responses to the suggestion from Canada, Japan, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam – the benefits of CPTPP membership could become quite limited.
The UK government has also stated that it sees geopolitical advantages in CPTPP membership, since it would put “the UK at the centre of a network of countries committed to free trade and to the global rules underpinning international commerce”.

Could the UK both join the CPTPP and have a trade deal with the EU?
Many CPTPP members also have trade agreements with the EU, so there is nothing in principle to stop it. Some of the provisions of the CPTPP, however, clash with the UK's obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement and with the EU’s demands in the future relationship negotiations.
For example, Article 58(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement requires the UK to protect “traditional terms” for wine. These are terms such as “château”, “clos” or “tawny” which, in the EU’s view, are associated with specific winemaking regions and should be reserved for them. The US disagrees vehemently and so secured a provision prohibiting the parties from restricting the use of such terms. The UK would need to secure an exemption from this rule to comply with its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement. This can be done – Canada secured such an exemption in the original TPP talks – but it highlights the complexity, and risk, of attempting to negotiate two wide-ranging and at times contradictory FTAs at once.
 
Also:

The article 16 vaccine row is over – but the damage has been done

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/article-16-vaccine-row-over-–-damage-has-been-done

The EU’s backtracking on its threat to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol is not only welcome – it is necessary.
Under the protocol, goods can travel freely between the EU and Northern Ireland, and from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. EU officials were concerned that Northern Ireland could be used as a backdoor into the UK, so frustrating its proposals to restrict the export of vaccines from member states. Their solution? To invoke article 16 of the protocol, under which the UK and the EU unilaterally take “appropriate safeguarding measures”, to block EU exports of the vaccine to Northern Ireland. In doing so, the EU added fuel to the fire of an already contentious debate in Northern Ireland and undermined its own credentials as a guardian of peace in the region.
The latest row over the EU’s supply contract with AstraZeneca has passed, but the damage has already been done. The UK and the EU must focus on how to rebuild trust – and how to provide assurance that the same mistakes will not be made again.


The circumstances did not justify the use of article 16
The protocol states that article 16 can be used in the event of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”. While there is no definition of ‘serious’, the intention is that it should only be used in exceptional circumstances, for example to respond to a total collapse of the Northern Ireland economy or terrorist threats – and any measure must be limited in scope and duration to what is strictly necessary. There is good reason for these thresholds to be high. Reopening one aspect of the agreement risks reopening all of it – creating more constitutional friction and more uncertainty for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.
The EU’s justification, that the use of article 16 was necessary to avert “serious societal difficulties” that would arise if the supply of vaccines to member states was undermined, fell well short of that high bar. [1] The risk that Northern Ireland would be used as a route to circumvent export controls was entirely hypothetical. It was also implausible. Northern Ireland sources vaccines from Great Britain via UK contracts, while EU supplies go direct to member state governments to distribute. Even if an EU-NI-GB route opened up, the chances of it having a genuine effect on vaccine supplies across the EU are even more remote. It is right that the Commission backed down. .

The EU has now lowered the bar for calls to use unilateral measures
The EU failed to go through the process for using article 16. There was no prior notification of the UK government, and it appears to have acted without consulting the Irish representation in Brussels or the government in Dublin. That overhasty action meant it failed to think through the consequences of its action.
The most damaging is that the EU’s move gives impetus – and credibility – to ongoing calls to invoke article 16 on the UK side. Since the protocol came into effect, members of the DUP have been arguing that unilateral action is necessary to address (the much more tangible) problems it creates for Northern Ireland’s supply chains from GB. Arlene Foster, the first minister of Northern Ireland, had avoided publicly backing those calls – until yesterday.
The genie is out of the bottle and can’t put back in – but unilateral measures will not provide a sustainable settlement for Northern Ireland. Instead, the EU and the UK must find solutions to the challenges created by the protocol. The end of a grace-periods for certain agri-food paperwork and products provides an opportunity for the UK and the EU to demonstrate their commitment to working together, by agreeing long-term, sustainable, and proportionate arrangements for supermarket supply chains.

Political missteps can have damaging consequences in Northern Ireland
The article 16 debacle appears to be more cock-up than conspiracy, with EU sources saying that the decision to invoke it was as ‘oversight’. [2] The UK government too has been vulnerable to forgetting the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, often finding itself backtracking on issues like GB stickers for Northern Ireland cars. But cock-ups on either side have damaging consequences in Northern Ireland, and both sides need to tread carefully if they are to live up to their rhetoric about the importance of maintaining stability.
This won’t be the last time that Northern Ireland’s special arrangements require careful consideration in implementing a UK or an EU policy. Under the protocol Northern Ireland is required to keep pace with changes to EU law – over time, as the UK and the EU statute books diverge, these types of challenges will multiply rather than diminish. Unless structures and systems are put in place to bring Northern Irish voices into the policy-making process, yet more missteps are certain to occur.
The UK and the EU have spent the last four years grappling with the unique challenges posed to Northern Ireland by Brexit. They must not let this progress be undermined by unavoidable errors.

​
  2. https://www.independent.ie/news/cov...-blocking-supplies-to-the-north-40028406.html
 
Frosty said:
UK applying to join Asia-Pacific free trade pact CPTPP


What would the UK get out of CPTPP membership?
The government has still not conducted an assessment of the economic impact of joining CPTPP. Its most recent policy paper on the subject just gives figures for how much trade the UK does in the region already and what percentage of tariffs would be eliminated under the agreement – which says little about what benefits would actually accrue to the UK.
The benefits of joining the CPTPP are also likely to depend on how successful the UK is at replacing, or ‘rolling over’, the existing FTAs it enjoys as an EU member state. The EU has signed FTAs with all of the CPTPP countries except Malaysia, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand, which the UK is therefore party to until the transition period ends. If the UK is able to roll over these existing EU–CPTPP agreements – admittedly far from guaranteed given the cool responses to the suggestion from Canada, Japan, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam – the benefits of CPTPP membership could become quite limited.
The UK government has also stated that it sees geopolitical advantages in CPTPP membership, since it would put “the UK at the centre of a network of countries committed to free trade and to the global rules underpinning international commerce”.
Click to expand...

This is quite amusing reading.

Has anyone in the UK government yet realised that the FTA's are only a minor part of their trade problems .

I also saw that the Liz Truss is now claiming that the UK have FTA's for a value of £885bn of which, wait for it £660bn is the EU, really; £100bn+ photocopies of Japan, Switzerland, S Korea, EU negotiated FTA's and loads of other little ones which are also continuation agreements of EU FTA's.

Surely Brexiters must be asking where are all the newly discussed trade agreements that the government told them they couldn't have when they were in the EU. Was it Fox who said they would all be ready to go the day the UK left the EU.
 
The hope with joining the CPTPP will be that the US join. Biden has made comments about starting negotiations to join, but without the US it gives the UK virtually nothing on top of what they have now with deals being negotiated with Australia and NZ.
 
Joining the TPP is a no-brainer. The long term vision has to be to slowly build this out into an Asia-centric trade zone to compete with China.
 
If the UK had FTA"s with all of the countries in the world it wouldn't make up for losing what it has lost by leaving the EU Customs Union.
It's complete and utter bs propaganda from the government.

The UK trades with the USA now, before the EU, after the EU, even having a FTA with the USA is not going to make a significant difference in the volume of trade.
The TTP is about Australia and NZ because they are ex colonial English speaking countres, the fact that they are so far away and trade is minute makes no difference as it appeals to Brexiters.

They've been sold a pup from a dodgy second hand car dealer, discovered the car has no engine, and the wheels are starting to fall off.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
If the UK had FTA"s with all of the countries in the world it wouldn't make up for losing what it has lost by leaving the EU Customs Union.
It's complete and utter bs propaganda from the government.

The UK trades with the USA now, before the EU, after the EU, even having a FTA with the USA is not going to make a significant difference in the volume of trade.
The TTP is about Australia and NZ because they are ex colonial English speaking countres, the fact that they are so far away and trade is minute makes no difference as it appeals to Brexiters.

They've been sold a pup from a dodgy second hand car dealer, discovered the car has no engine, and the wheels are starting to fall off.
Click to expand...

I don't think most people would disagree with you about leaving the customs union and we know how much has been lost there. That doesn't mean there's no benefits from joining something like the TTP especially when someone like the US are also thinking about joining. The pledge from the trade agreement is to have 95% of products between the participating countries with no or reduced tariffs.

Brexit was bad for the UK but unfortunately it's happened and we do need to look at other agreements even if they cover nowhere near the trade we currently have with the EU. As I said, I think this agreement is only beneficial if the US do join as they currently buy more than double the UK's exports as the rest of the countries put together. Whether that will happen is only on Biden's words at the moment.

It's also worth noting that it covers services and digital trade.

We're living off scraps but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't go for those scraps.
 
Balljy said:
I don't think most people would disagree with you about leaving the customs union and we know how much has been lost there. That doesn't mean there's no benefits from joining something like the TTP especially when someone like the US are also thinking about joining. The pledge from the trade agreement is to have 95% of products between the participating countries with no or reduced tariffs.

Brexit was bad for the UK but unfortunately it's happened and we do need to look at other agreements even if they cover nowhere near the trade we currently have with the EU. As I said, I think this agreement is only beneficial if the US do join as they currently buy more than double the UK's exports as the rest of the countries put together. Whether that will happen is only on Biden's words at the moment.

It's also worth noting that it covers services and digital trade.

We're living off scraps but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't go for those scraps.
Click to expand...

Of course the UK should try for anything they can scramble. The USA as an individual country (as opposed to a bloc of countries) has always been and always will be the UK's biggest individual trading partner but to have an agreement surely means they would expect to signficantly increase their trading. It won't. The USA is Ireland's biggest individual trading partner.

The trading aspect of Brexit was supposed to increase the UK's trade, not to scarmble around for scraps. Brexiters clearly still believe that the positives outweigh the negatves, which couldn't be further from the truth.
 
Bonjour, Wolfie.

I saw this and immediately thought of you.


Since his flamboyant Europeanist speech at the Sorbonne in October 2017, Macron’s juvenile enthusiasm for the European Project has significantly cooled. His growing impatience with Brussels sandbox politics, and his increasing interest in the Open Sea, are nowhere better illustrated than in a stunning speech made in December 2019 and little if at all noticed in Britain. It deserves to be quoted at some length::

“Whenever we consider our national history from the perspective of the longue durée, France has alternatively turned its back on its maritime dimension or embraced it … Every time it has turned its back on its maritime destiny in order to cultivate some continental obsessions [sic], every time it has been afraid of le grand large [the open sea], and refused to face the fact that it was a maritime power, France has regressed. Every time it has embraced its status as a maritime power, France has managed to conquer new frontiers, be it in terms of knowledge or geopolitics … France is Europe’s leading maritime power, and its status as an archipelagic-state is a unique geopolitical asset which makes France a global partner, an Indo-Pacific power as much as a European power… And I intend to see that France continues to exercise its full responsibilities vis-à-vis our maritime neighbours [sic], Australia, Japan, and India, and also America and China … I say with great conviction, the 20th century, in many respects, was continental, with its wars, its challenges, its way of thinking about borders….The 21st century will be maritime. That’s where the geopolitics of commerce and connexions will play out tomorrow. It is in this realm that France will have to define itself, to live with its allies, its neighbours, and perhaps its enemies. It is in the context of the maritime domain that we will have to rethink our existence, our food resources, our technological research…The 21st century will be maritime, I am deeply convinced of that …”

President Macron is unlikely to call for a Frexit anytime soon. But in the coming years, as he continues to make the predictable noises about the centrality of the ‘Franco-German couple’ and the need for ‘European sovereignty’, Macron is also quietly going to strengthen the Franco-British entente cordiale while continuing to turn toward the Open Sea. France’s Indo-Pacific Pivot may be less than a full-fledged Frexit, but it is definitely more than a hedging strategy in the event of a European dis-integration. Will France and Britain be partners, or rivals or both?

I guess that's the essence of diplomacy, isn't it. You become expert at saying what everyone wants to hear, running with the hare and hunting with the hound, but deep down, you just want to look after your own. Just like Angela and Ursula, bless them.

Now, back to your comments about UK trade and Brexit.

It's not about more trade as much as different trade.

Now, the UK can make choices it formerly couldn't, unlike the remaining EU members (or at least that's how it's supposed to work in the EU).
These include
  • Making our own laws and regulations.
  • A British regulatory framework able to better exploit the fourth industrial revolution and avoid EU protectionism.
  • Controlling trade policy, leading to new and better agreements such as the Japan FTA and joining the CPTPP.
  • An independent sanctions and human rights regime separate to and more progressive than the EU’s.
  • Taking back control of fishing waters eventually and having an exclusive economic zone.
  • Replacing the wasteful anti-environmental Common Agricultural Policy.
  • A new state aid regime that is responsive and in keeping with free market principles.
  • New freeports.
These changes allow flexibility, changes of focus, quicker action (vaccine, anyone?) and freedom to pursue what's considered beneficial for the British people, without having unelected bureaucrats saying we can't do it.

Why is this relevant? Well, this may surprise you, Wolfie, but to a bystander sometimes the way the EU operates can seem unfair or biased towards certain nations. We both know which ones, don't we.

Here's an example of a historic situation which resonates here because farming is an industry which we identify with closely.

French politicians and farmers are not happy about the EU’s plans to revamp the flagship, €58 billion-per-year Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) by putting member states and regions in charge of allocating aid disbursements. Currently, France is the largest recipient of CAP payments, receiving 17% of all expenditures, and campaigners have claimed that a reduction in central funding from Brussels could put the livelihoods of more than half of all French farmers at risk. In common with France’s position on other EU agricultural matters – such as its opposition to the Commission’s proposal to relicense glyphosate – the country’s farmers and politicians have been viewing the planned reform of the CAP from a purely nationalist perspective, choosing to ignore a range of compelling reasons why it needs to change.

It is not hard to see why France might be uneasy about any reform of the CAP that could ultimately lead to a fall in funding or a disadvantageous change in the way in which payments are distributed. The controversial policy, which eats up nearly 40% of the EU’s entire annual budget and goes to 7% of Europe’s population, currently works disproportionally in France’s favour, ploughing billions of euros into the country’s agricultural sector every year. Between 2007 and 2013, France’s farming sector and rural areas benefitted from CAP payments to the tune of more than €70 billion. Over the period leading up to 2020, the country will receive a further €63 billion as a result of the policy. Self-interest dictates that France will inevitably be less than enthusiastic about any policy shift that might challenge the status quo, and that its politicians and farmers will try their damnedest to resist change.

Now, we can farm in a manner that suits us.

That said, I will remain a great fan of your gorgonzola cheese.
 
I can't say which is more amusing, making Taiwan asking for help look like Germany is betraying it's partners or taking a Macron speech about global politics and making it about frexit.

I'm sure there's some apt idiom for this phenomena.
 
Abizzz said:
I can't say which is more amusing, making Taiwan asking for help look like Germany is betraying it's partners or taking a Macron speech about global politics and making it about frexit.

I'm sure there's some apt idiom for this phenomena.
Click to expand...

To be fair it comes from a site formerly named Briefings for Brexit.
 
Plymouth Red said:
  • Making our own laws and regulations.
  • A British regulatory framework able to better exploit the fourth industrial revolution and avoid EU protectionism.
  • Controlling trade policy, leading to new and better agreements such as the Japan FTA and joining the CPTPP.
  • An independent sanctions and human rights regime separate to and more progressive than the EU’s.
  • Taking back control of fishing waters eventually and having an exclusive economic zone.
Click to expand...

You can't do any of those truly independently if you want FTA's (not even going into customs unions where the real benefits are) because you have to have regulatory alignment with anybody you are trading with. The Japan deal was easy as we are historically aligned with the EU on standards and the EU have entered a deal with them themselves so the work was already done. Joining the CPTPP requires a base agreement on goods which is what we will have to negotiate and change our standards if necessary to align with their principles.
 
Balljy said:
You can't do any of those truly independently if you want FTA's (not even going into customs unions where the real benefits are) because you have to have regulatory alignment with anybody you are trading with. The Japan deal was easy as we are historically aligned with the EU on standards and the EU have entered a deal with them themselves so the work was already done. Joining the CPTPP requires a base agreement on goods which is what we will have to negotiate and change our standards if necessary to align with their principles.
Click to expand...
Fair points, well made, Balljy. I like the cut of your jib. You appear erudite.

But, surely, when we have the notion to enter an agreement with another country, we are acting independently in the construction of that notion? Unless, of course, we are under some sort of hypnotic control by a third party (Ursula, maybe? She has very piercing eyes).

I concur that once a decision is taken by the UK or indeed any state that enjoys freedom to determine its future course, i.e. pretty much the world minus 27 (or 25 if you omit the two we know well, if you get my drift), then you have to enter a set of discussions and potentially agreements where a degree of conformity will be required, which you can accept or decline, as you choose.

'Choose'. Lovely word, isn't it. Much like flange and malarkey.
 
Plymouth Red said:
Bonjour, Wolfie.

I saw this and immediately thought of you.


Since his flamboyant Europeanist speech at the Sorbonne in October 2017, Macron’s juvenile enthusiasm for the European Project has significantly cooled. His growing impatience with Brussels sandbox politics, and his increasing interest in the Open Sea, are nowhere better illustrated than in a stunning speech made in December 2019 and little if at all noticed in Britain. It deserves to be quoted at some length::

“Whenever we consider our national history from the perspective of the longue durée, France has alternatively turned its back on its maritime dimension or embraced it … Every time it has turned its back on its maritime destiny in order to cultivate some continental obsessions [sic], every time it has been afraid of le grand large [the open sea], and refused to face the fact that it was a maritime power, France has regressed. Every time it has embraced its status as a maritime power, France has managed to conquer new frontiers, be it in terms of knowledge or geopolitics … France is Europe’s leading maritime power, and its status as an archipelagic-state is a unique geopolitical asset which makes France a global partner, an Indo-Pacific power as much as a European power… And I intend to see that France continues to exercise its full responsibilities vis-à-vis our maritime neighbours [sic], Australia, Japan, and India, and also America and China … I say with great conviction, the 20th century, in many respects, was continental, with its wars, its challenges, its way of thinking about borders….The 21st century will be maritime. That’s where the geopolitics of commerce and connexions will play out tomorrow. It is in this realm that France will have to define itself, to live with its allies, its neighbours, and perhaps its enemies. It is in the context of the maritime domain that we will have to rethink our existence, our food resources, our technological research…The 21st century will be maritime, I am deeply convinced of that …”

President Macron is unlikely to call for a Frexit anytime soon. But in the coming years, as he continues to make the predictable noises about the centrality of the ‘Franco-German couple’ and the need for ‘European sovereignty’, Macron is also quietly going to strengthen the Franco-British entente cordiale while continuing to turn toward the Open Sea. France’s Indo-Pacific Pivot may be less than a full-fledged Frexit, but it is definitely more than a hedging strategy in the event of a European dis-integration. Will France and Britain be partners, or rivals or both?

I guess that's the essence of diplomacy, isn't it. You become expert at saying what everyone wants to hear, running with the hare and hunting with the hound, but deep down, you just want to look after your own. Just like Angela and Ursula, bless them.

Now, back to your comments about UK trade and Brexit.

It's not about more trade as much as different trade.

Now, the UK can make choices it formerly couldn't, unlike the remaining EU members (or at least that's how it's supposed to work in the EU).
These include
  • Making our own laws and regulations.
  • A British regulatory framework able to better exploit the fourth industrial revolution and avoid EU protectionism.
  • Controlling trade policy, leading to new and better agreements such as the Japan FTA and joining the CPTPP.
  • An independent sanctions and human rights regime separate to and more progressive than the EU’s.
  • Taking back control of fishing waters eventually and having an exclusive economic zone.
  • Replacing the wasteful anti-environmental Common Agricultural Policy.
  • A new state aid regime that is responsive and in keeping with free market principles.
  • New freeports.
These changes allow flexibility, changes of focus, quicker action (vaccine, anyone?) and freedom to pursue what's considered beneficial for the British people, without having unelected bureaucrats saying we can't do it.

Why is this relevant? Well, this may surprise you, Wolfie, but to a bystander sometimes the way the EU operates can seem unfair or biased towards certain nations. We both know which ones, don't we.

Here's an example of a historic situation which resonates here because farming is an industry which we identify with closely.

French politicians and farmers are not happy about the EU’s plans to revamp the flagship, €58 billion-per-year Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) by putting member states and regions in charge of allocating aid disbursements. Currently, France is the largest recipient of CAP payments, receiving 17% of all expenditures, and campaigners have claimed that a reduction in central funding from Brussels could put the livelihoods of more than half of all French farmers at risk. In common with France’s position on other EU agricultural matters – such as its opposition to the Commission’s proposal to relicense glyphosate – the country’s farmers and politicians have been viewing the planned reform of the CAP from a purely nationalist perspective, choosing to ignore a range of compelling reasons why it needs to change.

It is not hard to see why France might be uneasy about any reform of the CAP that could ultimately lead to a fall in funding or a disadvantageous change in the way in which payments are distributed. The controversial policy, which eats up nearly 40% of the EU’s entire annual budget and goes to 7% of Europe’s population, currently works disproportionally in France’s favour, ploughing billions of euros into the country’s agricultural sector every year. Between 2007 and 2013, France’s farming sector and rural areas benefitted from CAP payments to the tune of more than €70 billion. Over the period leading up to 2020, the country will receive a further €63 billion as a result of the policy. Self-interest dictates that France will inevitably be less than enthusiastic about any policy shift that might challenge the status quo, and that its politicians and farmers will try their damnedest to resist change.

Now, we can farm in a manner that suits us.

That said, I will remain a great fan of your gorgonzola cheese.
Click to expand...

Few points here, born British, French Citizen

Gorgonzola's italian.

French farming is subsidised by the EU but so was the UK's , now it has to be subsidised by the UK government, we'll see how that goes. Of course you need to export your farm produce and have now put so many barriers up by leaving the EU Custom's Union it's going to be significantly more difficult to be able to continue to do so.

Trade agreements mean you don't set the rules and regulations of what you export - it's the country you are shipping to tells you what standards and regulations you must abide by. The Japan FTA was the EU's negotiated agreement with a few things added on to try to persuade the British public that Liz Truss knows anything about international trade, ie. based on EU rules.
Having a free trade agreement doesn't mean that the UK have signed a contract worth £x billion - the value is based on historical data.

As you can see even according to the UK governments figures (which are wrong) 75% of their FTA's is with the EU but with loads of barriers instead because they left the custom's union.

On other points, the Uk has only to meet the minimum standards of the EU, if the UK wanted to do something better there was nothing to stop them. State aid is a question but don't seriously believe Tory's are too interested in nationalisation.

I'm sorry but the most crucial part of international trade is geographical proximity without barriers and the UK have put so many barriers by leaving the Customs Union nothing will ever come close to replacing this.

Bonne soirée
 
Last edited:
Yeah that defo all sounds Darroch's fault...

Failure to secure US trade deal is blamed on Kim Darroch: Scathing report accuses Britain's former US ambassador of 'failing to adjust swiftly enough' to Brexit referendum in 2016 as negotiations hit a wall

Lord Darroch made an 'underwhelming' attempt to engage the US Congress and build support for a deal among the Democrats, who criticised Mr Johnson's repeated threats to flout international law by breaking the Good Friday Agreement to secure a deal with the EU in September.
Click to expand...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-Britains-former-ambassador-Kim-Darroch.html
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Few points here, born British, French Citizen

Gorgonzola's italian.

French farming is subsidised by the EU but so was the UK's , now it has to be subsidised by the UK government, we'll see how that goes. Of course you need to export your farm produce and have now put so many barriers up by leaving the EU Custom's Union it's going to be significantly more difficult to be able to continue to do so.

Trade agreements mean you don't set the rules and regulations of what you export - it's the country you are shipping to tells you what standards and regulations you must abide by. The Japan FTA was the EU's negotiated agreement with a few things added on to try to persuade the British public that Liz Truss knows anything about international trade, ie. based on EU rules.
Having a free trade agreement doesn't mean that the UK have signed a contract worth £x billion - the value is based on historical data.

As you can see even according to the UK governments figures (which are wrong) 75% of their FTA's is with the EU but with loads of barriers instead because they left the custom's union.

On other points, the Uk has only to meet the minimum standards of the EU, if the UK wanted to do something better there was nothing to stop them. State aid is a question but don't seriously believe Tory's are too interested in nationalisation.

I'm sorry but the most crucial part of international trade is geographical proximity without barriers and the UK have put so many barriers by leaving the Customs Union nothing will ever come close to replacing this.

Bonne soirée
Click to expand...
Are you sure about the gorgonzola, Wolfie? When last I frequented the Exquis French Bistro in Eastbourne, I had some and it was fabulous. When I next visit, I shall enquire about its origin and cite you, if I may, as a subject matter expert. I don't think it will reach a point of litigation, but should that happen, might you hop back to your country of birth to speak on the matter?

On a different note and purely out of curiosity, did you move to La Belle France and take the pledge so to speak because of a love of wolves? I deduce an interest in Canis Lupus from your nom de plume. Or is it merely a reflection of constant hunger, as Duran Duran once trilled?

Back to business.

Firstly, British farm produce is highly sought after. As Valerie Berry, the French food critic, stated "There's no comparison (between French and British produce). English cheeses are just amazing. I often bring some back to France and my friends are always like 'wow'. Stilton is a unique product, and well above roquefort, I truly believe that. Then there's Wiltshire ham, Gower potatoes, beef – miles better than charolais or limousin – I could go on."

With Valerie in our corner, I'm sure we can continue to build on the significant growth in such exports to France as well as others. Come on, you Rosbifs!

Thanks for the simplistic explanation of a trade agreement. My understanding is that the key word is 'agreement' and as such, prior to committing to one, both/all parties fully understand the pros and cons, obligations, responsibilities and the like. Otherwise, you might find yourself dealing with an organisation which is hell-bent on tell, tell, tell and 'don't do as I do, do as I say'. I have no idea if such organisations exist, but I'd be jolly careful about dealing with them, if I were you.

I note your awareness of Liz Truss. Nice lady, doing a great job but the first to say she's willing to take advice and help. I'll pass on your details as I'm sure she's always on the lookout for a subject matter expert.

The geographic proximity one is a fair point, well made. You are definitely nearer to North Korea than the UK while we have an edge when it comes to the Americas. That's just how the cookie crumbles, I guess. As for barriers, well, I think our preference is to see them as opportunities to engage in dialogue rather than as insurmountable obstacles.

Oh, and we try to get our orders in early just in case there's a rush.
 
Plymouth Red said:
Are you sure about the gorgonzola, Wolfie? When last I frequented the Exquis French Bistro in Eastbourne, I had some and it was fabulous. When I next visit, I shall enquire about its origin and cite you, if I may, as a subject matter expert. I don't think it will reach a point of litigation, but should that happen, might you hop back to your country of birth to speak on the matter?

On a different note and purely out of curiosity, did you move to La Belle France and take the pledge so to speak because of a love of wolves? I deduce an interest in Canis Lupus from your nom de plume. Or is it merely a reflection of constant hunger, as Duran Duran once trilled?

Back to business.

Firstly, British farm produce is highly sought after. As Valerie Berry, the French food critic, stated "There's no comparison (between French and British produce). English cheeses are just amazing. I often bring some back to France and my friends are always like 'wow'. Stilton is a unique product, and well above roquefort, I truly believe that. Then there's Wiltshire ham, Gower potatoes, beef – miles better than charolais or limousin – I could go on."

With Valerie in our corner, I'm sure we can continue to build on the significant growth in such exports to France as well as others. Come on, you Rosbifs!

Thanks for the simplistic explanation of a trade agreement. My understanding is that the key word is 'agreement' and as such, prior to committing to one, both/all parties fully understand the pros and cons, obligations, responsibilities and the like. Otherwise, you might find yourself dealing with an organisation which is hell-bent on tell, tell, tell and 'don't do as I do, do as I say'. I have no idea if such organisations exist, but I'd be jolly careful about dealing with them, if I were you.

I note your awareness of Liz Truss. Nice lady, doing a great job but the first to say she's willing to take advice and help. I'll pass on your details as I'm sure she's always on the lookout for a subject matter expert.

The geographic proximity one is a fair point, well made. You are definitely nearer to North Korea than the UK while we have an edge when it comes to the Americas. That's just how the cookie crumbles, I guess. As for barriers, well, I think our preference is to see them as opportunities to engage in dialogue rather than as insurmountable obstacles.

Oh, and we try to get our orders in early just in case there's a rush.
Click to expand...
Wait, the UK is nearer to the Americas than the EU? Which map are you using where you're west of Ireland? Must be an expert matter map!
 
Does anyone know where I can get replacement sensors for my SmarmyGit-ometer? I seem to have burned out the existing ones.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Does anyone know where I can get replacement sensors for my SmarmyGit-ometer? I seem to have burned out the existing ones.
Click to expand...
They’re pretty well stocked throughout the UK despite the issues at the borders.
 
Plymouth Red said:
Are you sure about the gorgonzola, Wolfie? When last I frequented the Exquis French Bistro in Eastbourne, I had some and it was fabulous. When I next visit, I shall enquire about its origin and cite you, if I may, as a subject matter expert. I don't think it will reach a point of litigation, but should that happen, might you hop back to your country of birth to speak on the matter?

On a different note and purely out of curiosity, did you move to La Belle France and take the pledge so to speak because of a love of wolves? I deduce an interest in Canis Lupus from your nom de plume. Or is it merely a reflection of constant hunger, as Duran Duran once trilled?

Back to business.

Firstly, British farm produce is highly sought after. As Valerie Berry, the French food critic, stated "There's no comparison (between French and British produce). English cheeses are just amazing. I often bring some back to France and my friends are always like 'wow'. Stilton is a unique product, and well above roquefort, I truly believe that. Then there's Wiltshire ham, Gower potatoes, beef – miles better than charolais or limousin – I could go on."

With Valerie in our corner, I'm sure we can continue to build on the significant growth in such exports to France as well as others. Come on, you Rosbifs!

Thanks for the simplistic explanation of a trade agreement. My understanding is that the key word is 'agreement' and as such, prior to committing to one, both/all parties fully understand the pros and cons, obligations, responsibilities and the like. Otherwise, you might find yourself dealing with an organisation which is hell-bent on tell, tell, tell and 'don't do as I do, do as I say'. I have no idea if such organisations exist, but I'd be jolly careful about dealing with them, if I were you.

I note your awareness of Liz Truss. Nice lady, doing a great job but the first to say she's willing to take advice and help. I'll pass on your details as I'm sure she's always on the lookout for a subject matter expert.

The geographic proximity one is a fair point, well made. You are definitely nearer to North Korea than the UK while we have an edge when it comes to the Americas. That's just how the cookie crumbles, I guess. As for barriers, well, I think our preference is to see them as opportunities to engage in dialogue rather than as insurmountable obstacles.

Oh, and we try to get our orders in early just in case there's a rush.
Click to expand...

Gorgonzola is definitely italian; much prefer roquefort to stilton, actually used to live fairly close to Stilton and don't now live that far from Roquefort. Valerie Berry may have very strange tastes.
You could buy English products in France, unfortunately for the UK there will now be less and less due to all the red tape. Nevermind Cheddar is made in France and the USA and Australia.

The wolf is a long story.
As for Liz Truss I wouldn't have employed her as an export clerk in the companies I ran. (International trading companies).Very easily tell she is not qualified to do her job.


You would have thought that before triggering A50 the UK government may have done some kind of due diligence of what may happen, obviously not.

If you take the USA, probably best to take care of what you wish for. The Uk currently have a trading surplus, if the Americans start looking too closely , well, they may say the Uk export ten billion pounds worth of cars to the USA whereas the USA only export £1 billion to the UK. Can't have that, they may say.

By the way our biggest customers were the USA, strangely being in the EU didn't stop us trading with them.
 
This thread is taking a turn.

passive-aggressive-meter.jpg
 
FireballXL5 said:
Doesn't know gorgonzola is Italian and thinks Liz Truss is doing a good job. Ok then.
Click to expand...
Steve.
On the day that Justin Timberlake celebrates his 40th birthday, do you seriously consider cheese snobbery is appropriate?
How’s Robert, by the way?
 
Plymouth Red said:
Why is this relevant? Well, this may surprise you, Wolfie, but to a bystander sometimes the way the EU operates can seem unfair or biased towards certain nations. We both know which ones, don't we.
Click to expand...

The UK? The country with the special deal since 1985?

And even if you perceive others get an unfair deal then renegotiating it might be better than stropping out. Brexit was the equivalent of lopping your head off because you thought those damn foreigners were making haircuts more expensive.
 
Christ. It takes some doing, but Plymouth Red has blown the competition out of the water for worst post in this thread.

I know we're long past the point of anyone trying to convince anyone of their viewpoint, but blimey that's some impressive commitment to making yourself seem smarmy.
 
Frosty said:
UK applying to join Asia-Pacific free trade pact CPTPP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55871373

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-cptpp


Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)


What is the CPTPP?
The CPTPP is a free-trade agreement (FTA) between 11 countries around the Pacific Rim: Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Japan.

When was the CPTPP negotiated?
Negotiations for what was then simply the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) began in March 2010 and concluded on 5 October 2015.
The US was party to those talks, but the election of President Trump in 2016 led to its withdrawal from the agreement before ratification. The remaining 11 participants scrambled to amend the text of the agreement, and the newly renamed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership was signed in March 2018. It came into force in December the same year.

What does the CPTPP do?
The rights and obligations under the CPTPP fall into two categories:
  • Rules: for example, on how countries should make new food safety regulations or whether they can ban the transfer of data to other CPTPP members. These are the same for all CPTPP parties (including any new members that may join).
  • Market access: how far each CPTPP member will cut its tariffs, open up its services markets, liberalise visa conditions for business travellers, and so on. Each member has its own schedules of commitments. In some cases the commitments are offered to all other members, while in others they are restricted to specific negotiating partners.
The CPTPP provides for almost complete liberalisation of tariffs among the participants. Tariffs are retained in only a few highly sensitive areas – for example, Japan keeps tariffs on rice, while Canada’s dairy industry is also protected. It provides a single set of rules of origin, and allows content from all CPTPP countries to be ‘cumulated’. If a good has to have at least 70% ‘CPTPP content’ to qualify for preferential tariffs, for instance, that 70% can come from any combination of CPTPP countries.

Why is the CPTPP important?
The original TPP (including the US) would have been one of the world’s largest economic blocs, accounting for over 30% of world GDP. For this reason, it was thought that it would have been able to exercise of high degree of influence over the rules governing the world economy. In particular, the Obama administration hoped that it could become a vehicle to constrain the rise of China, setting rules for such a large group of countries that China would be compelled to follow them.
The smaller (if more ambitiously named) CPTPP is less significant, but still accounts for a substantial share (about 13%) of world GDP. This could rise, and help the CPTPP become even more important, were the US to come back on board – which Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for November’s US election, has hinted support for.

Can the UK join the CPTPP?
Yes – provided all the existing members agree. Article 30.4 of the agreement makes clear that the CPTPP is open to accession by any state “as the Parties may agree”. It is not necessary for a state to be in the Pacific region to participate.

What would the UK have to do in order to join the CPTPP?
A state that wants to join has to inform the New Zealand government (the depositary of the agreement), which will then inform the other members. The CPTPP Commission then decides whether or not to start an accession process. If it decides to start the process, a working group would be formed. The UK would have to explain to the working group how it was going to comply with the CPTPP rules.
Within 30 days of the first meeting of the working group, the UK would have to submit its market access offers: tariff cuts, lists of service sectors from which it proposed to exclude CPTPP members, and parts of government procurement that would not be open to bids from other CPTPP members. There would then be a process of negotiation. Once all the existing members are satisfied, the Commission would formally invite the UK to become a member.

Is the CPTPP Commission like the European Commission?
Not really. Unlike in the EU, there will be no new ‘CPTPP regulations’ developed over time. The CPTPP Commission is simply a gathering of representatives of CPTPP member states. It meets for short sessions about twice a year to discuss issues arising from the agreement, and to set procedures for the accession of new states and rules of conduct for dispute settlement.
There is no ‘CPTPP Court’ equivalent to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) either: if a dispute arises between the parties, an ad-hoc arbitration panel is convened. If the panel finds that a member state has breached its obligations under the agreement, there are no fines payable (as in the ECJ). Such a state has a choice of four options:
  • Comply with the CPTPP rules as interpreted by the panel.
  • Compensate the offended party through a tariff concession.
  • Compensate the offended party with a cash payment.
  • Accept increased tariffs on its own exports to the offended party.
What would the UK get out of CPTPP membership?
The government has still not conducted an assessment of the economic impact of joining CPTPP. Its most recent policy paper on the subject just gives figures for how much trade the UK does in the region already and what percentage of tariffs would be eliminated under the agreement – which says little about what benefits would actually accrue to the UK.
The benefits of joining the CPTPP are also likely to depend on how successful the UK is at replacing, or ‘rolling over’, the existing FTAs it enjoys as an EU member state. The EU has signed FTAs with all of the CPTPP countries except Malaysia, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand, which the UK is therefore party to until the transition period ends. If the UK is able to roll over these existing EU–CPTPP agreements – admittedly far from guaranteed given the cool responses to the suggestion from Canada, Japan, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam – the benefits of CPTPP membership could become quite limited.
The UK government has also stated that it sees geopolitical advantages in CPTPP membership, since it would put “the UK at the centre of a network of countries committed to free trade and to the global rules underpinning international commerce”.

Could the UK both join the CPTPP and have a trade deal with the EU?
Many CPTPP members also have trade agreements with the EU, so there is nothing in principle to stop it. Some of the provisions of the CPTPP, however, clash with the UK's obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement and with the EU’s demands in the future relationship negotiations.
For example, Article 58(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement requires the UK to protect “traditional terms” for wine. These are terms such as “château”, “clos” or “tawny” which, in the EU’s view, are associated with specific winemaking regions and should be reserved for them. The US disagrees vehemently and so secured a provision prohibiting the parties from restricting the use of such terms. The UK would need to secure an exemption from this rule to comply with its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement. This can be done – Canada secured such an exemption in the original TPP talks – but it highlights the complexity, and risk, of attempting to negotiate two wide-ranging and at times contradictory FTAs at once.
Click to expand...

Payback for Australia being allowed into the Eurovison Song Contest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.