Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shows how vital such trade deals are that they've only just signed the deal. I wonder how the EU managed to trade with Singapore before?

I flew out to Singapore myself a couple of times about fifteen years ago to assist with the installation of some measuring equipment at some pharmaceutical factories. I had no idea whether or not the EU had a trade deal in place, and it didn't seem to matter.

Believe me, it will have mattered to someone in the chain.
That you didn't notice it is pretty much irrelevant.

Or are you honestly suggesting that trade deals are not important?

I mean, that would fit with your idea that this should all be dead easy, and who cares anyway as WTO rules will be fine.

It would also be just as dead wrong...but that's no great surprise.
 
So, if these trade deals are so important, why did the EU wait till 2018 to sign the deal with Singapore? Why was the Canada deal delayed for decades? Or are these wonderful deals merely incremental changes to previous ones? Is there an existing trade deal between the EU and the USA? If not, why not?
 
From the same link above :
We are at this point entering serious nerd territory. If your eyes are beginning to glaze over, all we can say is welcome to the world as it really is. It has taken years of mind-numbing, tedious study to understand this amount of detail, and either you know it, or you don't. If you don't, you are going to make serious mistakes.
 
So, if these trade deals are so important, why did the EU wait till 2018 to sign the deal with Singapore? Why was the Canada deal delayed for decades? Or are these wonderful deals merely incremental changes to previous ones? Is there an existing trade deal between the EU and the USA? If not, why not?

Yes, the trade deal was just signed over a cup of tea on a whim.

Or maybe not.

"EUSFTA has been negotiated since March 2010"

Does it take work to be this ignorant, or is it just an innate talent?
 
Yeah, but the EU has been a thing for over forty years - so '8 years to negotiate' is no excuse. It shows how unimportant trade deals were to the EU when the EU didn't even bother to start them before the year 2000.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the EU has been a thing for over forty years - so '8 years to negotiate' is no excuse. It shows how unimportant trade deals were to the EU when the EU didn't even bother to start them before the year 2000.

It's 2018.

The negotiations started in 2007.

And no, it doesn't show how unimportant trade deals were to the EU. It simply shows that trade deals are massive undertakings and take a long time to negotiate, and having them is much better than not having them.
 
Apparently, since in ceptimus-Land trade deals should be really easy to do (presumably taking the Davis-Fox stance on these things), the EU should have been able to handle all these deals at once (as, indeed, should the other countries involved).

Or possibly, just possibly, all this is more complicated than that.
 
You've not addressed my question of, if they're so important, why weren't they started *MUCH* earlier?

According to that Wikipedia page you linked to, there are no EU trade agreements with China, Brazil, nor USA; there is a trade agreement with Chile, however. I'm pretty certain that the EU does a lot more trade with each of the three countries I listed than it does with Chile. Shows how vital these trade agreements really are.

Edit: changed Japan to Brazil, because the Wiki page says there has been a deal signed with Japan - though for some reason it's not actually applied yet.

Edit2: there are lots of countries the EU trades with, which are also missing from that list: Australia, New Zealand, India, ... Seems that trade is miraculously able to happen even without these wonderful trade agreements. The Wiki page says the EU has belatedly begun negotiations with some of these countries. In another seven or eight years, if the EU still exists, maybe the agreements will come into force.
 
Last edited:
You've not addressed my question of, if they're so important, why weren't they started *MUCH* earlier?

According to that Wikipedia page you linked to, there are no EU trade agreements with China, Brazil, nor USA; there is a trade agreement with Chile, however. I'm pretty certain that the EU does a lot more trade with each of the three countries I listed than it does with Chile. Shows how vital these trade agreements really are.

Edit: changed Japan to Brazil, because the Wiki page says there has been a deal signed with Japan - though for some reason it's not actually applied yet.

Edit2: there are lots of countries the EU trades with, which are also missing from that list: Australia, New Zealand, India, ... Seems that trade is miraculously able to happen even without these wonderful trade agreements.

So we should expect FOXcom and the anti suicide net factories to be opening up in Britian any day now? That sounds great, you can work 14 hours a day for less than a pound an hour.
 
You've not addressed my question of, if they're so important, why weren't they started *MUCH* earlier?

According to that Wikipedia page you linked to, there are no EU trade agreements with China, Brazil, nor USA; there is a trade agreement with Chile, however. I'm pretty certain that the EU does a lot more trade with each of the three countries I listed than it does with Chile. Shows how vital these trade agreements really are.

Edit: changed Japan to Brazil, because the Wiki page says there has been a deal signed with Japan - though for some reason it's not actually applied yet.

Edit2: there are lots of countries the EU trades with, which are also missing from that list: Australia, New Zealand, India, ... Seems that trade is miraculously able to happen even without these wonderful trade agreements. The Wiki page says the EU has belatedly begun negotiations with some of these countries. In another seven or eight years, if the EU still exists, maybe the agreements will come into force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes
 
You've not addressed my question of, if they're so important, why weren't they started *MUCH* earlier?

I'm struggling to believe you are actually serious with this post because I don't think you are genuinely as thick as this post comes across.

These are complex time-consuming negotiations which consume a lot of resources and require bilateral agreement on many many many details.

Things take time and not everything can be done at once so out of necessity some will be started and concluded earlier than others.

If they are unimportant/of little value why do you think countries bother with them? Just to give negotiators something to do?

According to that Wikipedia page you linked to, there are no EU trade agreements with China, Brazil, nor USA; there is a trade agreement with Chile, however. I'm pretty certain that the EU does a lot more trade with each of the three countries I listed than it does with Chile. Shows how vital these trade agreements really are.

The EU has been negotiating an FTA with China for a long long time. Ditto Brazil. Ditto USA. They haven't been able to agree one yet.

Edit: changed Japan to Brazil, because the Wiki page says there has been a deal signed with Japan - though for some reason it's not actually applied yet.

"For some reason" being that those are the terms of the agreement?

Edit2: there are lots of countries the EU trades with, which are also missing from that list: Australia, New Zealand, India, ... Seems that trade is miraculously able to happen even without these wonderful trade agreements. The Wiki page says the EU has belatedly begun negotiations with some of these countries. In another seven or eight years, if the EU still exists, maybe the agreements will come into force.

The 3 countries you quote have been in negotiations for an FTA with the EU for some time.

Of course trade can happen without an FTA - but it is often cumbersome, limited and subject to tariffs that do not benefit consumers. That's one reason why in most cases buyers in EU countries would prefer to deal with other EU countries where possible.
 
Of course trade can happen without an FTA - but it is often cumbersome, limited and subject to tariffs that do not benefit consumers. That's one reason why in most cases buyers in EU countries would prefer to deal with other EU countries where possible.
This explains why the EU does virtually no trade with China. :D
 
It does.
But it is trade with tariffs.

As I said before, since you seem to think our economy and trade levels would be fine with WTO tariffs in place, you clearly are desperate to build a new narrative that makes (in your head at least) Brexit seem fine.

Our trade will take a battering under WTO rules as all the countries we now trade with (whether in the EU, or as part of EU trade deals) will suddenly become more expensive to trade with. I can't believe you are so dim as to not understand this that I can only assume you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issues. It isn't working.
 
It's not just about tarrifs. Again from my LeaveHQ link above
The WTO Option advocates will tell you that countries such as China, the United States and Australia all trade with the EU without formal trade agreements, and therefore operate under WTO rules. They don't have these problems so why would the UK? The answer, however, is remarkably simple. These countries don't rely solely on WTO rules.



What the WTO Option advocates have done is make a very basic but fatal mistake. They’re so obsessed with tariffs, they haven’t begun to focus on non-tariff barriers. Thus, by and large, they are only looking at trade agreements dealing with tariffs — a sub-set of international agreements which are registered with the WTO. But there are many different types of agreement and many which involve trade, either directly or indirectly, which are not registered with the WTO. These, for our WTO Option advocates, remain under the radar. To them, they are invisible.

Yet one of the most important types of trade agreement is the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on conformity assessment. This gets round the problem of border checks, as the EU will then recognise the paperwork on product testing and conformity certification. Throw in an agreement on Customs cooperation — to ensure that official paperwork and systems mesh — and you are on your way to trouble-free border crossings.

China has a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Economic Operators, signed in May 2014, the United States has one on conformity assessment which runs to 81 pages, agreed in 1999. Australia has one on conformity assessment.
 
Today MEPs sign off the relocation of the European Medicines Agency from London to Amsterdam
 
Farage Tweets

"Olly Robbins and the British Civil Service are the enemy within, they signed up to the European dream many years ago and want to sabotage Brexit."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom