Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The idea that post BREXIT trade negotiations would be wrapp
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The idea that post BREXIT trade negotiations would be wrapped up quickly is divorced from reality
There has been outrage on the Leave side at the suggestion in an official government paper that negotiations after a vote to leave the EU in the upcoming referendum might take up to 10 years or more. Chris Grayling commented: “Claims that it will take twice as long to sort out a free trade deal with the EU as it did to win world war two are clearly ludicrous”.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
We are not starting from scratch. We are not starting from a position of separation and no harmonisation.
Therefore, the comparison is pointless.
Some good research has gone in to Mr Meeks and I find the facts compelling & worrying.
LEAVE need to come back and explain why, in light of this evidence, BREXIT will be different and shorter not just shout "Propaganda"
Really? There isn't a single example in your table of one taking 12 years, and thats despite them all having less focus than a UK EU trade deal would have.
On democracy, I guess that is a question that would find some resonance with Scottish or Cornish voters when looking at Westminster. Or voters in safe seats under FPTP. Or.... and so on. Is the EU's democratic deficit really offensively worse than the other ones we accept?
As I explained to Richard yesterday, uncertainty isn't always a bad thing. Look at Japan or this country under "no boom and bust" Brown. You just end up drifting as a nation.
We were told endlessly here that LDs were immune to electoral reality and the Tories didn’t have a chance.
Neither were correct.
So if it's Brexit, all trade with Europe ceases? Wouldn't that be a positive for our "trade gap" as it used to be called? I don't claim to be an economist, but I suspect things would ramble on as now until alternative arrangements are in force?
Unless those pesky black rats invade.
Personally, I'm thinking of finding a deserted island for the next 4 months...
What evidence do you have that it will be concluded faster
It is true that any UK/EU deal would start from with the advantage that we are already signed up to the acquis communitaire, and we would presumably simply incorporate nearly all of EU law relating to the Single Market into UK law.
What really matters is not the actual period of negotiation, but the period of business uncertainty. In the least-disruptive scenario, following a Leave result we would rapidly decide on an EEA-style deal as our aim (the government could conceivably do that in three or four months, perhaps, although it might well take longer), and then negotiate with our EU friends on that basis. The key date would be the date on which heads of agreement were signed; at that point, business would know it could rely on access to the Single Market even if the final legal stuff hadn't been sorted out. In such a scenario, perhaps the period of business uncertainty might be as short as 18 months from June 24th.
Conversely, one can imagine other scenarios where we dither around for a lot longer, run up against the two-year Article 50 limit, and/or embark upon an attempt to agree a comprehensive new deal. A period of uncertainty of several years is perfectly possible.
We just don't know.
When it does happen all that above fearmongering either will or won't happen anyway, so why is now so bad, considering for example how well our economy is doing. Much better to leave now with a booming economy to support us, then get ejected in a few years as we are in the middle of recession.
So has David Herdson.
Richard Tyndall wrote an elegant piece too.
Most likely is that we start negotiations a year or two before invoking exit procedure, and deal would be done in that time.
Well write it rather than just whinging and hoping someone else will do the work.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/01/no-republican-nominee-has-ever-won-all-of-the-different-states-donald-trump-has/
Odd that lefties see leaving the EU as a source of economic uncertainty, but don't see the near flawless ability of Labour chancellors to crash the economy into the rocks in the same light, although the later is almost certainly more severe than the former.
Well there's a surprise.
Trade is a 'whatever' issue for your average Brit, surely.
Sovereignty - the difference between a treaty such as NATO or TTIP (which I don't know much about) is that NATO can't make new rules against the wishes of the UK which are then binding on the UK. The EU, through QMV, can.
It would be nice if someone on either side explored this, but they don't really have an incentive. Leavers want to foster the idea of a swift, clean break; Remainers don't want to look at ways of making withdrawal look workable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement
Thus, whatever happens, stay or leave, the business lobby from both sides will be huge to make it work one way or another. The like of the Germans aren't going to want a large, easy to export to, and profitable market cut off.
I am looking forward to the debarring of 20 or so Tory MPs because of the illegal activity of their campaigns. And the elections that follow, of course.
If Cameron loses his majority, will he be able to stitch up another deal with the Lib Dems??? Some hopes, Miss Plato!!!!
* Single European Act: 12 countries, signed 17 Feb 1986, in effect 1 July 1987
* Maastricht: 12 countries, signed 7 February 1992, in effect 1 November 1993
* Amsterdam: 15 countries, signed 2 October 1997, in effect 1 May 1999
* Nice: 15 countries, signed 26 February 2001, in effect 1 February 2003
* Constitution Treaty: 25 countries, signed 29 October 2004, never in effect
* Lisbon: 27 countries, signed 13 December 2007, in effect 1 December 2009
For completeness, here is the Fiscal Stability Treaty, which was done under enhanced cooperation and was not EU-wide, so the process is different
* TSCG (part 1): 16 countries, signed 2 March 2012, in effect 1 January 2013
* TSCG (part 1&2): 25 countries, signed 2 March 2012, in effect 1 April 2014
The ratification process has to go thru each country's legislative procedure, and there's usually a upper house, a lower house, and a head-of-state to mollify - in Belgium there's more than that, but let's keep it simple. There are 28 EU countries, so that's about a hundred entities that have to say YES, all at different parts of the electoral cycle. This is why it takes so bloody long.
So if the regotiations are major, you're looking at 1-2 years to get an agreement signed, and about 2-3 years thereafter to get it ratified. Say 4 years from beginning to end. And that's if everybody plays nice.
This is way too long for the two-year disconnect procedure, so there will have to be workarounds, which i will discuss in the next post
An excellent article for Leave, highlighting the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU.
In any event, since the EU countries have a strong economic incentive to do a deal, then it is likely interim measures will be put in place, before a deal is finalised.
Both parties will want this happen, even if there is a bit of huffing and puffing for show.
I know I'm biased, but if the Leave side want to complain about the Remain's side analysis of the leaving process, time for them to put up or shut up. Saying "neither Norway nor Switzerland" isn't going to calm any doubts and I can't see any option that there's any consensus behind. Their pitch seems to be that "the EU is so bad that any other outcome is better" which seems a surefire way to 35% to me. I never appreciated the Scottish Government's efforts with their white paper until compared with the lack of any clarity from Leave.
" First thing we do......"
There will be a period of uncertainty which will cost us 1-2% GDP, most likely. That's less than a quarter of what we lost in one year under Brown....
The agreement is to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. Whether approval by all EU member states is also necessary is disputed. If approved, the agreement would begin to come into effect in 2016
"I'm not at all sure that some 'black rat' might just be calling you out for racism - it's the Oscars all over again."
True, and Rattus Rattus (no hint of colour there) may not have been totally responsible for the buboes.
Maybe it will and not a single Mercedes or BMW will cross these shores for eight years, nor a single bottle of champagne.
I look forward to The Daily Meeks more than I used to look forward to the weekly Beano when I was a kid, it's funnier and more far fetched.
All complete nonsense. And the same people who peddled that rubbish expect others to take them seriously now!
The reality is that we either get EEA/EFTA or we remain in the EU for a much longer period post-Brexit than two years.
I think the numbers also need to be put into context:
EU goods exports in 2015 - £133bn (latest data)
EU services exports in 2014 - £58bn (latest data)
2015 UK GDP - £1,789bn
Total proportion - 10.8%
This isn't going to disappear overnight either and free of the burden of EU regulations and with the weaker pound our non-EU exports will rise and cover any shortfalls if, unlikely as it seems, we lose single market access for 8 years after voting Leave.
It seems there will a roaring trade in t-shirts over the next couple of years: "Don't Blame Me I Voted Leave."
Taking a step back as I don't want to sound like another EU apologist, I'm probably still in favour of leave, but it's on a non-EEA/EFTA basis as I don't see the case for a halfway approach.
That said those plague rats still worry me in the event of a Brefenestration.
Voting Remain would in the best short term interest of the economy, and even then not by much as Charles keeps pointing out.
Key ones have the strong incentive and can 'arrange' for the others to fall into line.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/independent-scotland-could-be-banned-from-using-158373
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/MEX_EU/MEX_EU_e.ASP
Chile's was only around 4 years as well as I recall
On Korea, the deal came into force provisionally in 2011 so the table is misleading really. Like some of these other agreements there is a phase in period during which tariffs etc. are removed - this is designed to allow adjustments in sensitive sectors. Clearly a UK-EU deal would not require any such period as there are no tariffs now.
Democrat delegates:
HRC = 611 "Soft" + 452 Supers
Bernie = 410 "Soft" + 19 Supers
My forecast before the vote was 608 vs 413 "soft" so it is as expected.
A better than expected performance by Hillary in Alabama and Georgia made up for her very poor show in Minnesota. All other results were almost bang on the forecast.
The oldest poll was for Minnesota too (Jan 20th !) with small sample sizes.
So the pollsters did quite well in the DEM race, but old polls are worse than useless.
Of course, the other way of looking at the table is to see an indication of just how ineffective and slow the EU is when it comes to negotiating trade deals with non member states. In the time that the EU has agreed 8 free trade deals, EFTA has agreed 25 free trade agreements with 36 states including Canada, Mexico, Hong Kong and Singapore. Outside the EU, the UK would be free to negotiate its own trade deals without worrying about how to get all 28 member states to agree.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/704970569473601536
You know - if I were a bungee jumper I would not want you measuring the length of the elastic for me.
Put it another way - don't take up parachute packing for a living.
On the morning of a Leave result he would do one of two things:
1. Get on the first plane to Brussels to see what they can offer to make sure the peasants vote Remain in a second referendum.
2. Resign.
I do like a Venn Diagram - from the Government paper on different Brexit models: Britain's "special status" https://t.co/XvnsvgysXH
Gather Andorra and Vatican City missing
Not difficult is it?
===============
The major-all-encompassing treaty changes frequently adumberated will take several years. The Civil Service ten-year estimate is on the high side, but horribly not implausible. So that's fucked. But if you are prepared to sacrifice major change, there are workarounds.
1) Minimum change treaty
A UK-EU Association Agreement reproducing the existing arrangements, with perhaps some minor cosmetic changes to make it look good, can be signed quickly. Minor changes to the treaties take place every 12-18 months, so such a treaty should go thru on the nod. You can get this done in two years, again if everybody plays nice and nobody fucks around with a referendum (IRELAND! NO! PUT IT DOWN!)
That will have to happen to prevent uncertainty, provide a legal framework for further developments, and prevent GBP becoming toilet paper.
2) Enhanced cooperation treaty
EU-wide treaties take forever, but the "enhanced cooperation" procedure (bought in by, if memory serves, the Treaty of Nice), provides a legal framework by which agreements can be reached more quickly with a subset of countries. Say two-years to get this done, three if you include the initial negotiations
So, you could get the minimum-change treaty done by the T+2 years, then most of the rest done by T+5. Thereafter would be tidying up and irredentists pointlessly trying to squeeze the last piece of toothpaste out of the tube. You won't get all of what you want, and I'll be surprised if you can get most of what you want, but you can get some.
If anyone ever wants to submit a piece for consideration on any topic, Vanilla message me, and I'll see what we can do.