EU & Brexit Bunker

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I can't see an incoming Democratic President/House/Senate (if that happens) having too much time to think about complicated stuff with one small island the other side of the Atlantic, given the worldwide geopolitical shit that Trump's oversized arse has unleashed on the world. NATO, Russia, Iran, China, are all going to be bigger priorities. Maybe even the EU.

Agreed, but I think we need to seek a re-establishment of relationships closer to home so we are not in a position, possibly post Trump, of a return to wasting time and effort courting an Administration which, as you suggest, may have little interest in rekindling the 'special relationship'.

The Americans don't want or need it and we need to concentrate our time and money elsewhere.

 

[rakkor]

I can't see an incoming Democratic President/House/Senate (if that happens) having too much time to think about complicated stuff with one small island the other side of the Atlantic, given the worldwide geopolitical shit that Trump's oversized arse has unleashed on the world. NATO, Russia, Iran, China, are all going to be bigger priorities. Maybe even the EU.

Even forgetting the geopolitical issues that Trump and MAGA have created, I think the bigger issue for the next administration is to recover from the internal damage caused by Musk and his failed DOGE experiment, RFKjr and his batshit crazy DoH, and the politicisation of the DOJ and FBI. I'm sure they're only going to be paying lip service to us.

 

[briantrumpet]

I guess it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I guess it's too late to do anything about it.

View attachment 14164

"Completed with a desperate Johnson administration". I always find starting off a negotiation from a point of desperation to be a strong opening position!

 

[PurplePenguin]

I guess it's too late to do anything about it.

View attachment 14164

Don't you find this a bit tedious? The UK FTA improved working holiday visa arrangements whereas the EU one did not. Different governments focus on different things, and clearly a protectionist EU government is going to focus on protectionism.

I just don't understand point of continuing to flog the same dead horse.

 

[Pblakeney]

I just don't understand point of continuing to flog the same dead horse.

Because we are still in the saddle of said horse.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

I just don't understand point of continuing to flog the same dead horse.

Surely you mean dead cow?

 

[briantrumpet]

Don't you find this a bit tedious? The UK FTA improved working holiday visa arrangements whereas the EU one did not. Different governments focus on different things, and clearly a protectionist EU government is going to focus on protectionism.

I just don't understand point of continuing to flog the same dead horse.

Because the EU is still there, and how we trade with it will always have a significant effect on the UK, whatever the arrangements are (currently massively suboptimal). Neither horse is dead, but recognising the mistakes made and the shackles that restrict better trade is a sensible thing to do, in order to inform future discussions.

All the above is even more important in a destabilised world where alliances are rapidly shifting in unexpected directions.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Don't you find this a bit tedious? The UK FTA improved working holiday visa arrangements whereas the EU one did not. Different governments focus on different things, and clearly a protectionist EU government is going to focus on protectionism.

I just don't understand point of continuing to flog the same dead horse.

If something has be shown to be a mistake then you continuously review said mistake to make future improvements. If a football team gets relegated they don't delibearately follow on the same path next season and just continue to get relegated again, they try to asess what went wrong and make the necessary improvements.

We have an economy and trade agreements that were adversely affected by Brexit. People that voted Brexit say they want a better economy and better UK in general, but don't seem to want to change our economic outlook by addressing past mistakes.

I don't see it as flogging a dead horse, rather trying to resurrect a badly injured one.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Because the EU is still there, and how we trade with it will always have a significant effect on the UK, whatever the arrangements are (currently massively suboptimal). Neither horse is dead, but recognising the mistakes made and the shackles that restrict better trade is a sensible thing to do, in order to inform future discussions.

All the above is even more important in a destabilised world where alliances are rapidly shifting in unexpected directions.

You are arguing, again, that the EU has a better trade deal with another country based on one line item, and yet again, failing to recognise that the UK and the EU have different priorities. The ability of the UK to negotiate bespoke trade deals is a Brexit benefit, it has come at a cost of more friction when trading with the EU.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

it has come at a cost of more friction when trading with the EU

Mmm.

 

[briantrumpet]

You are arguing, again, that the EU has a better trade deal with another country based on one line item, and yet again, failing to recognise that the UK and the EU have different priorities. The ability of the UK to negotiate bespoke trade deals is a Brexit benefit, it has come at a cost of more friction when trading with the EU.

No, I'm arguing that being out of the EU both puts us in a precarious position politically in a very unstable world, overall will not be beneficial to the UK's future financial health, and that the deal with Australia is symptomatic of the relative weakness the UK has imposed on itself. Learning from that is part of the process of doing better in the future.

 

[PurplePenguin]

No, I'm arguing that being out of the EU both puts us in a precarious position politically in a very unstable world, overall will not be beneficial to the UK's future financial health, and that the deal with Australia is symptomatic of the relative weakness the UK has imposed on itself. Learning from that is part of the process of doing better in the future.

Copilot's view on the difference between the two agreements

In general, the UK–Australia FTA is far broader, deeper, and more liberalising than the EU–Australia FTA, especially in areas like services, mobility, and regulatory cooperation. The EU deal is commercially significant—particularly for goods—but it is more conservative, excludes mobility, and reflects the EU’s more cautious mandate.

 

[briantrumpet]

Copilot's view on the difference between the two agreements

One might counterbalance that with this from Gemini on the UK-Oz deal, if we're doing AI comparison. Maybe a more cautious deal wouldn't have resulted in this imbalance of outcomes.

 

[PurplePenguin]

This isn't the AI thread, but if you ask a leading question, then that's the answer you will get e.g. Why was the UK the big winner from the FTAs?

The UK is widely seen as the “big winner” from the Australia and New Zealand FTAs because it secured unusually generous market access, major mobility concessions, and rapid tariff elimination—benefits that go far beyond what the EU typically negotiates. The UK government highlights that the Australia FTA alone is expected to boost UK–Australia trade by 53% and add £2.3 billion to the UK economy in the long run