the EU & the UK

[MyNameIsTerry]

I still don't agree with anyone who puts "permanent" in any contract. Only fools do that. Sadly, "the" CU might be the compromise though.

I would prefer looking towards a bilteral deal such as Switzerland over any Common Market 2.0 option. Putting FOM back into the mix was never going to work. The trouble with the Swiss model though is it leaves a load of time needed for that bilateral agreement, just as Corbyn's "a" CU does, although we would have more chance at this. It does mean the same squabbles over SM though but the Swiss seem to manage and we would have the EFTA but without EEA membership hence avoiding FOM. Given the Swiss have the same model, and have rejected EEA membership for than once (and have Norway), we would have some solidarity which the EU may find harder to dismiss.

And without addressing the SM issue the CU isn't something we should agree on either otherwise we could end up locked back into both via stealth.

[MyNameIsTerry]

To add about Switzerland I found this point very interesting and it's worth further investigation:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...nd-iceland-spt

Switzerland has also performed considerably better outside the bloc, currently being the 11th richest country in the world per capita.Leading economist Michael Burrage argued in his 2016 book "Myth and Paradox of the Single Market: How the Trade Benefits of EU Membership Have Been Mis-sold", that the Alpine country has managed to open markets of more than £26trillion.The author explained: “In terms of the absolute size of the markets opened, in some unknown manner and degree, to freer trade in services, the EU agreements total $4.8tn.“Whereas Swiss FTAs have opened markets of $35.8tn (£26tn) to their services exporters, which is more than seven times larger than those opened by EU negotiators.”

Pain's point about us getting back to being good at trade springs to mind. The Swiss appear to be, better than the EU in fact. That's the enormous EU with it's enormous market power and shared negotiators. So, why are they doing so much worth than one small country?

EDIT: that does appear to be specific to Services hence may not reflect other trade levels where the EU do better. However, this only raises a different question about why our Services based economy isn't being prioritised as the Swiss do with theirs.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Brexit Day + 15

Following the excellent reasoning and faultless strategy of Mr Farage using ‘The Brexit Party’ identity because the word ‘Brexit’ already had top Google ranking, I’ve been off setting up my own political party, which in similar vein will be called ‘The Cross Party’. I’m going to write to the other Rees Mogg siblings (otherwise known as the ‘Moggies’) and suggest they join my moral, green-shield-of-virtue-crusade against the tyranny that is British Parliament (and they’ve got heaps of money, which will come in useful for the very considerable expenses I’ll undoubtedly incur).


As of yet, I don’t have any policies; but I’m working on the principle that a certain Anthony Blair never had any policies (or was that principles?) and absence of any (policies? principles? whatever!) certainly got him to the top. What I may do is make a Statement of Intent -- a McGuffin Charter, if you like. That should cover just about everything without putting me to the trouble of thinking up anything … eh, Mr Corbyn?

Remember, you heard it here first:
The Cross Party – The Real Deal for Angry Folks – It ain’t going to be no bun fight!
(That’s the soundbite – you can tell because it’s grammatically incorrect).

Policies could include:

1) Brexit means Brexit.
2) All Remain voters to be registered.
3) Registered Remain voters expected to spend at least 3 hours per day reading the banners on buses or face sanctions.
4) Leave voters issued with hi vis jackets.
5) MP's to attend decision making classes.
6) App created to judge public mood whereby virtual cabbages are thrown at MP's and policies. (thus engaging with "the yoof")
7) Brexit means Brexit

[MyNameIsTerry]

More about the Swiss! Some useful links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switze...nion_relations

https://www.sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home...z-eu-efta.html

They are in Schengen and have a form of FOM. What? I thought the only FOM that exists is the one in the SM? Nope, they have a different agreement with the EU called Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP) and it includes an ability to set quotes. But this doesn't account for the removal of passport controls that we get under a CU but being in Schengen means they have become party to a policy that originated outside of the EU, and later became a component of EU law as well, which allows them to discard the passport checks.

ROI & UK sit outside Schengen. What? The ROI don't want to be in it? Why not? I thought they loved their freedom to roam? They utilise the CTA instead. No excuse for you not to join Schengen now then eh Leo?

It doesn't resolve trade crossings though. But how much of a border is a border?

But really does showing your passport mean so much? After all, if you travel from the UK to ROI they will ask to see your passport. What? I thought we were in a CU so we could travel freely removing some checks? Nope, it's the SM that works towards free movement of persons.

So, if we consider sticking to the current EUCU all we do is tackle import/export and STILL leave a hard border in Ireland as far as private citizens are concerned? Yep. So, this CU that resolves NI really only resolves part of it then? Yep. Without the back up of the CTA or us being in Schengen people will be stopped between ROI & NI.

But we don't seem to be told this, do we? So many have told us without a CU with have to have a hard border and the WTO insist on it. Yet the WTO aren't surely interested in Visa controls for private citizens, are they?

But back to the Swiss!

I wonder if any of this looks familiar to us?

On 27 November 2008, the interior and justice ministers of European Union in Brussels announced Switzerland's accession to the Schengen passport-free zone from 12 December 2008. The land border checkpoints will remain in place only for goods movements, but should not run controls on people, though people entering the country had their passports checked until 29 March 2009 if they originated from a Schengen nation.

On 9 February 2014, Swiss voters narrowly approved by 50.3% a ballot initiative launched by the national conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP/UDC) to restrict immigration, and thus reintroducing a quota system on the influx of foreigners. This initiative was mostly backed by rural (57.6% approvals) and suburban agglomerations (51.2% approvals), and isolated towns (51.3% approvals) of Switzerland as well as by a strong majority (69.2% approval) in the canton of Ticino, while metropolitan centres (58.5% rejection) and the French-speaking part (58.5% rejection) of Switzerland rather rejected it.^[] Some news commentators claim that this proposal de facto contradicts the bilateral agreements on the free movement of persons from these respective countries.

In December 2016, a compromise with the European Union was attained effectively canceling quotas on EU citizens but still allowing for favorable treatment of Swiss-based job applicants.

That must be that sensible EU Corbyn is talking about. But the Swiss not being in the EU means they get more direct say in policy making as they can always renege. And their people have more of a say preventing too much being dragged into the EU and too much EU say in that pull without some brakes. The Swiss seem to aim for a certain level of integration though.

So, it seems many roads lead to Rome. Despite our Parliament squabbling over limited sets of options we do have others open to us that give us back more control yet retain closer ties to our EU friends. I wonder whether these could constitute a harder soft Brexit that is soft enough not to be too hard? We could call it "Terry's Semi"

[MyNameIsTerry]

Some more on our issues with Liam Fox and his trade agreements.

Most Favoured Nation (MFN)

He has to deal with the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) agreement that all WTO signatories have. The problem here is that we are also part of the EU which has exemptions from this to allow for regional economic integration. But what does that mean? Well, the EU have gone further than MFN inside it's own borders so as we leave we can't stick to that level without opening it up to every other MFN in the WTO outside of the EU. But I believe that doesn't mean specific trade agreements the EU have arranged with third countries are treated the same so when it comes to grandfathering in old trade deals are treated the same since they would not be reflective of regional economic integration.

The EU trade deals do include a MFN status. Therefore if we negotiate a FTA with one of these countries we decide what rates to set and we don't have to give that to all other MFN's in the WTO since the FTA allows for exemption from that rule. Interestingly I've seen it argued that we could trigger the opposite of this but that's not what the WTO state in their rules. IT's true that is the case but there are strict rules that can be followed that prevent it therefore if we can stick to those we can avoid rolling it out to everyone...and isn't this just a basic point of setting up a FTA anyway? That's what we have all these trade lawyers for, or used to, so some eejit doesn't forget to put the relevant bits together and unexpectedly opens up the FTA to the whole WTO?

Rules Of Origin
We will have to consider these grandfathered deals to see if we can still meet this clause because we do so much importing of parts across the EU. It's possibly some industries, such as the car industry, may need these adjusting to meet current deals or those grandfathered deals will need amending.

The good news is that these are much more loosely dealt with as their is still not true global agreement of it. It's left to those involved in it with some reporting to the WTO in some cases.

Also, relaxing these rules can alter import/export rates so there may be hidden benefits other countries would appreciate.

[mezzaninedoor]

Some more on our issues with Liam Fox and his trade agreements.

Most Favoured Nation (MFN)

He has to deal with the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) agreement that all WTO signatories have. The problem here is that we are also part of the EU which has exemptions from this to allow for regional economic integration. But what does that mean? Well, the EU have gone further than MFN inside it's own borders so as we leave we can't stick to that level without opening it up to every other MFN in the WTO outside of the EU. But I believe that doesn't mean specific trade agreements the EU have arranged with third countries are treated the same so when it comes to grandfathering in old trade deals are treated the same since they would not be reflective of regional economic integration.

The EU trade deals do include a MFN status. Therefore if we negotiate a FTA with one of these countries we decide what rates to set and we don't have to give that to all other MFN's in the WTO since the FTA allows for exemption from that rule. Interestingly I've seen it argued that we could trigger the opposite of this but that's not what the WTO state in their rules. IT's true that is the case but there are strict rules that can be followed that prevent it therefore if we can stick to those we can avoid rolling it out to everyone...and isn't this just a basic point of setting up a FTA anyway? That's what we have all these trade lawyers for, or used to, so some eejit doesn't forget to put the relevant bits together and unexpectedly opens up the FTA to the whole WTO?

Rules Of Origin
We will have to consider these grandfathered deals to see if we can still meet this clause because we do so much importing of parts across the EU. It's possibly some industries, such as the car industry, may need these adjusting to meet current deals or those grandfathered deals will need amending.

The good news is that these are much more loosely dealt with as their is still not true global agreement of it. It's left to those involved in it with some reporting to the WTO in some cases.

Also, relaxing these rules can alter import/export rates so there may be hidden benefits other countries would appreciate.

Thats really interesting stuff.
Further shows the limited flexibility of WTO and its application.

[mezzaninedoor]

To add about Switzerland I found this point very interesting and it's worth further investigation:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...nd-iceland-spt

Switzerland has also performed considerably better outside the bloc, currently being the 11th richest country in the world per capita.Leading economist Michael Burrage argued in his 2016 book "Myth and Paradox of the Single Market: How the Trade Benefits of EU Membership Have Been Mis-sold", that the Alpine country has managed to open markets of more than £26trillion.The author explained: “In terms of the absolute size of the markets opened, in some unknown manner and degree, to freer trade in services, the EU agreements total $4.8tn.“Whereas Swiss FTAs have opened markets of $35.8tn (£26tn) to their services exporters, which is more than seven times larger than those opened by EU negotiators.”

Pain's point about us getting back to being good at trade springs to mind. The Swiss appear to be, better than the EU in fact. That's the enormous EU with it's enormous market power and shared negotiators. So, why are they doing so much worth than one small country?

EDIT: that does appear to be specific to Services hence may not reflect other trade levels where the EU do better. However, this only raises a different question about why our Services based economy isn't being prioritised as the Swiss do with theirs.

Yes. We need to look at the Services basis of the economy and factor that into any deal. If the Swiss can succeed Im willing to agree that we ought to be able to succeed, except our MPs probably wont compromise to get any deal that mirrors the Swiss or close to it.

[MyNameIsTerry]

So, I have have always wondered about the EU trade deals. For me, they were one reason for the EUCU and I was pleased when we were told they could be grandfathered in with a bit of leg work (first class, no less ). But something that has bothered me for a while is the EU list if states in this. There are major world players missing and lot of smaller countries. This makes me a little suspicious of this "but we will lose all our trade deals" stuff I keep hearing.

To understand this better, at least at a very high level, and to get a sense of what Fox's tiny number of 8 deals, much mocked by hardcore Remainers, could really mean. I haven't looked at what Fox has done yet but wanted to look at whether we truly benefit from all these trade deals the media keep telling us we need. I have found very mixed results, some big players and a load of places we just won't feel an impact from as trade is so minor. This tells me we need to prioritise, which is obvious, and not worry too much about covering all the WTO bases:

Brexit Workings - EU FTAs.png

I've dumped the data out of a basic spreadsheet into a .png image so I could upload it direct to NMP. If you click on it you will be able to view it as a webpage so it will be zoomable to a size it can be read. But the full shot is below for those that don't want to bother with that.

There were some I couldn't find on the ONS search facility. Some were under slightly different names to the Wiki page. Some are overseas territories so may be included in the EU states own trade figures with us e.g. French Overseas Territories couldn't always be found. The Channel Islands and British Overseas Territories are also not included, for obvious reasons.

I haven't put any prioritisation in there but it's obvious when you see it there are some prime states and some smaller beers. Maybe other EU states do well out of some of the smaller players? But for us, they aren't worth running around worrying about reverted to WTO over and can represent a future project of trade.

It's perhaps also worth noting Developing Countries in here. There are exemptions in WTO to help set up trade with them. Their small numbers may also be more important to them in that they would engage with us to boost their economies. They may even do better in a 1-2-1 FTA relationship where they will less likely find the EU trying to impose things on them to protect the SM?

It's also worth noting that these are line-by-line but some are grouped together into shared trade deals. See the Wiki page for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

So, there may be more interesting groupings that add up to large numbers for us to prioritise. I had to breakdown a couple of these to get at the figures, as they were known as their groupings rather than at state level which you will see where it says see breakdown, but I haven't grouped these others up.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Next up in Terry's Trades we have the Commonwealth:

Brexit Workings - Commonwealth.png

Note: 2 of these states are now in the EU hence will be dealt with by whatever trade deal we do as a whole with them. Those marked in orange are states with FTA's (in force, partial, to be signed or future) with the EU. The uncoloured have no FTA's with the EU.

I think we also need to remember, in this and my previous post, that Canada's CETA deal is a very recent one and it was said would mean very little trade for the UK (interesting in of itself that other EU nations will do well out of it then ). And the Singapore deal is pending. These both account for large volumes of trade but they can hardly be used as an argument for EU trade deals we will lose due to these reasons.

So, there are a few states there we could do with working on. I've seen hardcore Remainders having a good old sneer at the prospect of Australia & New Zealand. Either they have nothing work buying (pretty insulting to them) or we already do so much trade there is nothing to open up/boost. If the latter was true then why have the EU being looking at doing FTA's with them and have with some of our other larger trades states? That sounds like BS to me especially given the push for deals with big parties like the US, India, China, etc.

[MyNameIsTerry]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liecht...ustoms_control

Liechtenstein. An interesting principality that I understand people trek in & out of daily to work. How do they achieve this? They are in the EEA, hence subject to the 4 Freedoms (bearing in mind this is not the SM, the EEA is separate) and also joined Schengen. This allows for FOM will no border checks.

So, another little anomaly out there that shows it's not as simple as hard border. They aren't in the EUCU. Doesn't this further show the EUCU deal is a being spinned as a replacement for the GFA/CTA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liecht...nion_relations

On 28 February 2008 Liechtenstein signed the Schengen Agreement and became part of the Schengen Area on 19 December 2011.Before this, Switzerland shared an open border with Liechtenstein and was already a full Schengen Area member. This open border was not considered a threat to European security because it would be highly difficult or impossible to enter Liechtenstein without first landing in or entering a Schengen state. The border with Austria was not open, and it was treated as an external border post by Austria and Liechtenstein, making it necessary to pass through customs and passport control before crossing.

What? So, they had a completely open border with Switzerland without a Customs Union? But what of that hard border we are told is international law? It states the EU didn't believe it to be a security threat as you would have to pass through a Schengen state to get to it. Is that so different to ROI? ROI are not in Schengen, and Leo has no reason not to join it now we are leaving, but it is surrounded by water.

Hmm...