So, "sovereign FTAs" seem to be then name for what Brexiter Andrew Lilico
writing in the Telegraph wants now.
A "sovereign FTA" is one where "the UK makes its own laws instead of being subject to EU laws or to EU court determinations" which would means giving the UK unfettered tariff free access to the EU market.
He goes on to write:
There is nothing strange about the UK position. Developed countries enter into free trade agreements with each other all the time without subjecting themselves to the laws or courts of their trade partner. The UK seeks only the sort of FTA that is made by Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, Japan, Korea and many similar countries all the time.
and this completely mis-represents these FTAs. They all have supra-national arbitration mechanisms and anti-dumping ( aka Level Playing Field terms) and the EU expects the same in a UK-EU deal.
Then he writes:
It’s possible that the EU will panic and buckle when it realises the UK is indeed prepared to walk away, as it did at the end of 2019.
and I'd find this comic if it were not so tragic. What panic and buckle is this? What happened at the end of 2019? Oh yes, Johnson gave up on May's red line over the Irish Sea Border and agreed to the EU's original Withdrawal Agreement with a couple of fig leaves to save his embarrassment. That was not an EU panic and buckle it was Johnson stiffing the DUP and the ERG!
He also thinks:
Furthermore, the UK negotiators may well feel that international developments over the next few years will strengthen their hand, so they may get a better deal from the EU in, say, 2023 than they would in 2020, anyway. With the combination of the Covid-19 crisis, Hong Kong and its Indian border conflict making China increasingly internationally isolated, there is a good chance that China’s role in world trade could diminish over the next few years.
The simple matter of the fact is that, no matter what happens in the rest of the world, the UK is not as important to the EU27 as their Single Market and Customs Union is to them.
That's the real sticking point for the UK. The UK is asking for a trade deal on terms the EU think are worse than no deal.
The EU don't have an FTA with the USA because there too, they think the terms the USA want are unacceptable.
If the EU can hold out on the USA for a trade deal it can surely hold out on the UK too.
As for EU tariffs, he forgets just how many FTAs the EU has. Over 70% of EU membership trade is done with the EU ( free trade by virtue of the Single Market and Customs Union ) or countries with whom the EU has FTA that respect level playing fields and the like. The there's the Everything But Arms scheme for the developing world under which the EU unilaterally gives them tariff free access to the EU.
Finally, we get the old "they need us more than we need them" argument:
The exporter/producer side of trade deals is less important (though tends to be discussed much more, through special pleading). Here there is one key fact: the EU exports a lot more to the UK than the UK does to the EU. So if there were to be significant two-way barriers to exports it is the EU that would suffer more and the EU that would therefore be more eager to return to the table in 2023 or 2024 to try again.
The problem here is they don't need us more than we need them. We are 4% of their export market, they are 45% of ours. That's what matters. Also, who else are we going to buy our Porches and Mercs from? Who else are we going to buy our overnight trucked fresh vegetables from?
Yes, the EU will also suffer from a no deal Brexit but they'll weather it and still not be prepared to compromise their Single Market, Customs Union and Level Playing Field for a UK trade deal.
On the up side, now that Parliament have given up the ability to approve trade deals a future UK Government will be able to be more realistic. It will be a painful wait.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/dont-worry-uk-eu-talks-collapsing-strike-better-deal-years/
Comments