EU & Brexit Bunker

[PurplePenguin]

Let me guess: Burnham is still trying Cake & Eat It.

View attachment 17227

Or the EU is still trying to Cake and Eat it.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Maybe, maybe not. The prospect of dealing with an institution that doesn't retract an agreement before the ink in the signature is dry probably compensates for some concessions.

They suffered this with Wallonia last time.

 

[Psamathe]

Given the challenges of agreeing the EU-Canada trade deal and that Canada still has not reached agreement with the UK, I feel like this is pretty unlikely to happen. It may sound vaguely appealing to the average Canadian now, but they won't like it when the actual detail is discovered.

Maybe, maybe not. The prospect of dealing with an institution that doesn't retract an agreement before the ink in the signature is dry probably compensates for some concessions.

Also between countries that recognise mutual benefit rather than zero sum game. For Trümp to "win" others have to "lose" whereas things like trade can deliver mutual benefit and EU recognises that.

How difficult probably depends on scope of goods covered. Whilst undoubtedly there are some EU protectionist rules, I see many as ensuring a level playing field eg where EU has chosen to protect its citizens from toxic pesticide residues, that imposes additional production costs so allowing other counties who poison their citizens in the name of cheap contaminated food to flood your own markets is not that "equal footing".

 

[C R]

They suffered this with Wallonia last time.

The agreement was not ratified because Wallonia opposed it. That's different from signing an agreement and then the other part walking out once it is in force.

The issue is that the US can not be trusted to keep to the agreements it signs up to.

 

[PurplePenguin]

The agreement was not ratified because Wallonia opposed it. That's different from signing an agreement and then the other part walking out once it is in force.

The issue is that the US can not be trusted to keep to the agreements it signs up to.

So the deal that Canada thought it had done was reopened. Yes, it is different from Trump's pencil, but it is hardly a tattoo.

 

[C R]

So the deal that Canada thought it had done was reopened. Yes, it is different from Trump's pencil, but it is hardly a tattoo.

The deal had not been done. It had to be ratified and it wasn't. Canada would have been aware of the process.

 

[briantrumpet]

Or the EU is still trying to Cake and Eat it.

They drive a hard bargain – hardly news. Labour still thinking the UK can get preferential treatment having taken a decision that hurt both parties – is hardly news either.

But the UK isn't going to get Single Market/Customs Union access without accepting the conditions which all the other members – either full EU members, or EEA members – have to abide by, because to do so would simply break the EU (which obviously some people want to).

 

[PurplePenguin]

The deal had not been done. It had to be ratified and it wasn't. Canada would have been aware of the process.

Canada would also have been aware that the USMCA was up for discussion after six years.

 

[Pblakeney]

Canada would also have been aware that the USMCA was up for discussion after six years.

The issue over there is that the deal had been renegotiated and pretty much agreed, until the US threw in some last minute stipulations.
Like "You cannot do trade deals with other countries unless we agree to it". Completely overruling a sovereign nation.

 

[PurplePenguin]

The issue over there is that the deal had been renegotiated and pretty much agreed, until the US threw in some last minute stipulations.
Like "You cannot do trade deals with other countries unless we agree to it". Completely overruling a sovereign nation.

I'm certainly not defending the US. I'm just pointing out it is not wildly different from Wallonia suddenly wanting agreed things changed.

 

[Psamathe]

until the US threw in some last minute stipulations.
Like "You cannot do trade deals with other countries unless we agree to it". Completely overruling a sovereign nation.

Another "last minute US demand" I saw was no longer including French language on labelling. Which I can see could not be accepted given Canada's language systems. My impression is it was a bit like a US stealth acquisition of 51st State (or a significant step in that direction).

 

[Pblakeney]

Another "last minute US demand" I saw was no longer including French language on labelling. Which I can see could not be accepted given Canada's language systems. My impression is it was a bit like a US stealth acquisition of 51st State (or a significant step in that direction).

Precisely.
Which is why Cairney walked.

 

[C R]

I'm certainly not defending the US. I'm just pointing out it is not wildly different from Wallonia suddenly wanting agreed things changed.

The difference is that the EU ratification process was known from the beginning, and the objections that caused the Wallonia rejection were also known, but ignored by both Canada and the EU commission during the negotiations. The US trick came out of the blue.

 

[Pblakeney]

I'm certainly not defending the US. I'm just pointing out it is not wildly different from Wallonia suddenly wanting agreed things changed.

US - Canada was ultimately more just than a trade agreement, like Psamathe says..