[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[ranzino]

Have you even read the guidelines?

The EU is offering a standard free trade agreement, but with 'extras' that suit them such as access to fishing waters and level playing field rules so the UK would not be able to gain a competitive advantage over the EU after Brexit.

it's all up for negotiation. EU offers market access of UK seafood in exchange for fishing rights.

[Iphie]

Oh my, this looks a bit forboding

[Noradin]

A regular free trade agreement, except for the areas where the EU is doing some cherry picking of its own around fisheries and level playing field mechanisms...

What "cherry picking"?
The part where both sides get access to the waters of the others and get to refrain from overfishing the north sea?
You are very determined to make sure the fishing industry is destroyed forever before the next generation aren't you?
It's not like it didn't almost happen in the past and would have happened if British fishing companies had free reign.

[Tinch]

What "cherry picking"?
The part where both sides get access to the waters of the others and get to refrain from overfishing the north sea?
You are very determined to make sure the fishing industry is destroyed forever before the next generation aren't you?
It's not like it didn't almost happen in the past and would have happened if British fishing companies had free reign.

The UK's waters are the largest and richest in Europe, of course the EU would like reciprocal access to each other's waters. Or can we now start saying that the UK wanting a free trade agreement for financial services isn't cherry picking because both sides get reciprocal access? Even though the UK stands to gain more in that aspect.

The EU is saying that the UK cannot get a bespoke trade deal, yet is also expecting the UK to agree to level playing field rules. I think that's one of those 'have your cake and eat it' positions that the EU likes to accuse the UK of wanting.

Wow you got me, of course what I secretly meant was that I want to see the fishing industry destroyed...

[Tinch]

Well the EU is giving tariff-free trade and is requesting equal access to fisheries and continued regulatory convergence which is required by all free trade agreements anyway. May has been begging them to make her an offer, they just did. Feel free to decline.
The UK cannot possibly get access to financial services. The basic need to control transactions on Euro-denominated currencies by the ECB is simply incompatible outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ. A significant number of checks are only waived for the City because it is within the EU. Outside the EU, those checks and the delays they cause will have to happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, that's not having your cake and eating it. It's paying to buy the cake. Do you want free cake?

You talk as though the EU is doing the UK a favour, tariff free trade benefits both sides. Its more like the UK buying a cake and then the EU eating half.

I'm not criticisng what the EU is offering, they're free to do what they like. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to claim the UK wants to cherry pick when they want to do the same. Obviously both sides will push the deal that benefits themselves the most.

Michel Barnier has also been saying that a deal on financial services is impossible, yet comments that he made regarding financial services during the TTIP negotiations have been circulating in the UK press today, and his position sounded very different back then.

[Dizzeeyooo]

I'm not criticisng what the EU is offering, they're free to do what they like. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to claim the UK wants to cherry pick when they want to do the same. Obviously both sides will push the deal that benefits themselves the most

the UK is trying to cherry pick elements that it has no negotiating leverage to support, the EU is not

Michel Barnier has also been saying that a deal on financial services is impossible, yet comments that he made regarding financial services during the TTIP negotiations have been circulating in the UK press today, and his position sounded very different back then.

a deal on financial services is impossible, unless your negotiating partner has something they can offer to make it worth offering in return - equating elements of a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world to the UK exiting the EU and begging for scraps on the way out is idiotic

[Tinch]

What you're both saying is not the definition of impossible. If a deal on financial services isn't on the table because the UK has no leverage as you claim then fine, but it would be good to see people be honest about that and not try and act like it is something that simply can't be done.

Of course the EU is cherry picking, they laid out the set arrangements that they could agree with the UK (single market, EEA, FTA etc.) In these guidelines they are claiming that only an FTA is possible due to the UK's red lines, yet they're adding stipulations such as 'level playing field' on top - what other FTA do they have where they require this from the other side?

[Deleted]

No, what the EU is doing is not cherry picking..

May said it was the otherday, its become one of these catch phrase talking points.

[Demolitia]

You talk as though the EU is doing the UK a favour, tariff free trade benefits both sides. Its more like the UK buying a cake and then the EU eating half.

I'm not criticisng what the EU is offering, they're free to do what they like. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to claim the UK wants to cherry pick when they want to do the same. Obviously both sides will push the deal that benefits themselves the most.

Michel Barnier has also been saying that a deal on financial services is impossible, yet comments that he made regarding financial services during the TTIP negotiations have been circulating in the UK press today, and his position sounded very different back then.

To be fair let's put things in perspective. Fishing is less than 1% of the UK's economy, and about the same for the EU. I think the point here is the ensure control on fishing quotas and limit over fishing. The EU is not so much interested in dutch fishermen looting your fish stock as making sure the UK doesn't empty the seas.
You have to see the latest EU paper as a response to May's last speech.
The UK is basically demanding all the advantages of being within the EU, without paying for it, except for staying within a few agencies for which it intends to pay, while refusing the ECJ's authority and giving no guarantee for standard alignments on the long run.
Now you have the EU's response, which is the polar opposite. An FTA on goods which is in the EU's interest. No financial services as you refuse the EU standards regulatory authorities, and a funny little jab about fishes, which I suspect is as much about environmental concerns as to piss of the UK. It has almost zero economical impact but it seems to be a sensitive topic on the other side of the Channel.
Now we have both positions and we can negotiate from there.
Financial services are almost 13% of your economy, and passporting was a great factor in getting you there. The UK is used as a springboard into EU markets. Barnier's comments have to be put back into context. They are your main interest, and you basically burned all the bridges by putting red lines on any possible common regulatory framework unless we create an EU outside the EU for the UK. There is little appetite to humor you there within member states. If you had accepted the Customs Union and ECJ authority on common issues, things would have been much different.

[Demolitia]

What you're both saying is not the definition of impossible. If a deal on financial services isn't on the table because the UK has no leverage as you claim then fine, but it would be good to see people be honest about that and not try and act like it is something that simply can't be done.

Of course the EU is cherry picking, they laid out the set arrangements that they could agree with the UK (single market, EEA, FTA etc.) In these guidelines they are claiming that only an FTA is possible due to the UK's red lines, yet they're adding stipulations such as 'level playing field' on top - what other FTA do they have where they require this from the other side?

After the financial crisis the EU has gone to great length to create stability mechanism and funds, banking authorities and a regulator for securities and financial products. Accepting the UK remains Europe's banker while being outside of all of this is a hard pill to swallow. Unfortunately this is exactly the product you want to keep in the FTA while ruling out EU's efforts. There is no easy or nice way to put it.

edit: ther FTAs are not about states that were so closely linked in all sectors. The Eu has an FTA with South Korea because it's buying alot of electronics from it anyway. And it's not too concerned by being flooded by anything other than electronics. Same goes with Canada. It's mostly on services and certain goods. There is no fear for competition and stuff both side were already buying.

[Huehuecoyotl]

What you're both saying is not the definition of impossible. If a deal on financial services isn't on the table because the UK has no leverage as you claim then fine, but it would be good to see people be honest about that and not try and act like it is something that simply can't be done.

Of course the EU is cherry picking, they laid out the set arrangements that they could agree with the UK (single market, EEA, FTA etc.) In these guidelines they are claiming that only an FTA is possible due to the UK's red lines, yet they're adding stipulations such as 'level playing field' on top - what other FTA do they have where they require this from the other side?

The only people that aren't being honest are on the UK side. We are the side making impossible, contradictory statements. That the EU, at every single stage, have said "this is not possible". As for what they are saying about the FTA, any FTA will have both sides seeking concessions to make the deal good from their point of view. Neither side (in a proper negotiation) would start with what the other side would say is a fair deal. The fair deal is what you end up with after the haggling is done.

[Slant]

Have you even read the guidelines?

The EU is offering a standard free trade agreement, but with 'extras' that suit them such as access to fishing waters and level playing field rules so the UK would not be able to gain a competitive advantage over the EU after Brexit.

This is a guideline for the negotiations. Free Trade Agreements usually entail stuff that concerns trade. Otherwise it would be a free fun agreement. If you hyperboled less, and thought a bit more about your post, you'd realise that yourself.

And yes, the goal of the EU is to get the best deal for the EU. Is this seriously a surprise for you? How do you think virtually every other negotiation partner of the EU feels like? Why do you think the US tried to deal with European countries individually last year? I can give you a sneak preview, it's not because the EU is a pushover.

- - - Updated - - -

What you're both saying is not the definition of impossible. If a deal on financial services isn't on the table because the UK has no leverage as you claim then fine, but it would be good to see people be honest about that and not try and act like it is something that simply can't be done.

Of course the EU is cherry picking, they laid out the set arrangements that they could agree with the UK (single market, EEA, FTA etc.) In these guidelines they are claiming that only an FTA is possible due to the UK's red lines, yet they're adding stipulations such as 'level playing field' on top - what other FTA do they have where they require this from the other side?

Of course everything is theoretically possible. You could pass a law that requires all busdrivers to wear pink pants. What we're telling you is that the core principles of the EU won't be touched. You can scream and whinge all you like, but the core principles are what make the EU what it is. Waiving them for the UK would undermine the whole concept of the EU and destroy the very thing the UK wants to leech off of.

So, practically speaking, they are impossible. That you don't understand them or why they are impossible is not really the concern of the EU. And that's something you'll learn over the next few weeks. Or not. It's really inconsequential whether or not you understand why certain things won't fly.

[Deleted]

Damn EU trying to attack our fishing industry, don’t they know our entire post Brexit economy relies on it?

[Tinch]

The only people that aren't being honest are on the UK side. We are the side making impossible, contradictory statements. That the EU, at every single stage, have said "this is not possible". As for what they are saying about the FTA, any FTA will have both sides seeking concessions to make the deal good from their point of view. Neither side (in a proper negotiation) would start with what the other side would say is a fair deal. The fair deal is what you end up with after the haggling is done.

Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the UK's handling of Brexit to this point, I've said many times that they've been making a mess of it.

Nevertheless there was no difference between May's speech last week and the EU guidelines that were published yesterday - its both sides setting out their ideal future relationship.

Yet one side is accused of wanting unicorns and making unreasonable demands and the other is deemed to be just wanting the best for its member states. As I've said I'm not complaining about the EU's proposal, they're free to offer whatever they want.

It's just the hypocrisy of some commentators that I find funny.

[Tinch]

This is a guideline for the negotiations. Free Trade Agreements usually entail stuff that concerns trade. Otherwise it would be a free fun agreement. If you hyperboled less, and thought a bit more about your post, you'd realise that yourself.

And yes, the goal of the EU is to get the best deal for the EU. Is this seriously a surprise for you? How do you think virtually every other negotiation partner of the EU feels like? Why do you think the US tried to deal with European countries individually last year? I can give you a sneak preview, it's not because the EU is a pushover.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course everything is theoretically possible. You could pass a law that requires all busdrivers to wear pink pants. What we're telling you is that the core principles of the EU won't be touched. You can scream and whinge all you like, but the core principles are what make the EU what it is. Waiving them for the UK would undermine the whole concept of the EU and destroy the very thing the UK wants to leech off of.

So, practically speaking, they are impossible. That you don't understand them or why they are impossible is not really the concern of the EU. And that's something you'll learn over the next few weeks. Or not. It's really inconsequential whether or not you understand why certain things won't fly.

I literally just summarised the EU guidelines, not sure how that can be considered hyperbole. As I said I've got no issue with what the EU is proposing, I just like to point out the hypocrisy of some commentators over how they approach Brexit.

Barnier didn't consider a deal on financial services 'practically impossible' during TTIP. That would've involved US financial services gaining greater access to EU markets and funnily enough it wasn't considered to be an existential threat to the EU's core principles then.

If a deal on financial services is practically possible with the US, then it is practically possible with the UK. Like I've said if its based on the size of both markets then fine, but then don't pretend like it's a decision made based on the core principles of the EU, you can't have it both ways.

[Slant]

I literally just summarised the EU guidelines, not sure how that can be considered hyperbole. As I said I've got no issue with what the EU is proposing, I just like to point out the hypocrisy of some commentators over how they approach Brexit.

Barnier didn't consider a deal on financial services 'practically impossible' during TTIP. That would've involved US financial services gaining greater access to EU markets and funnily enough it wasn't considered to be an existential threat to the EU's core principles then.

If a deal on financial services is practically possible with the US, then it is practically possible with the UK. Like I've said if its based on the size of both markets then fine, but then don't pretend like it's a decision made based on the core principles of the EU, you can't have it both ways.

You're asking to give foreign banks direct access to EU facilities and Governments. Are you joking? If something goes wrong, how would we prosecute banks? Especially British banks that are known to tinker with semi-illegal to fully fledged criminal banking behaviour?

[Tinch]

You're asking to give foreign banks direct access to EU facilities and Governments. Are you joking? If something goes wrong, how would we prosecute banks? Especially British banks that are known to tinker with semi-illegal to fully fledged criminal banking behaviour?

I'm not proposing anything, I'm simply highlighting comments made by Michel Barnier during the TTIP negotiations which contradict the comments he is making during the Brexit negotiations.

[Kiri]

Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the UK's handling of Brexit to this point, I've said many times that they've been making a mess of it.

Nevertheless there was no difference between May's speech last week and the EU guidelines that were published yesterday - its both sides setting out their ideal future relationship.

Yet one side is accused of wanting unicorns and making unreasonable demands and the other is deemed to be just wanting the best for its member states. As I've said I'm not complaining about the EU's proposal, they're free to offer whatever they want.

It's just the hypocrisy of some commentators that I find funny.

I think the difference is that the EU stance has been known for a while and is pretty much sticking to their established rules, while May has a shopping list of infeasible things, so those are seen differently. Basically, the EU stance had been known even before Brexit was even a thing, so Britain going into negotiations with things they know will not be agreed upon seems more outlandish to people. The EU also tends to get more leeway from commentators since the impetus for this whole situation did not originate from them.

[Deleted]

What you're both saying is not the definition of impossible. If a deal on financial services isn't on the table because the UK has no leverage as you claim then fine, but it would be good to see people be honest about that and not try and act like it is something that simply can't be done.

The degree of access asked for is impossible - It requires being a part of the EU's regulatory ecosystem, that's Regulations, Enforcement, Adjudication, the whole lot.

Of course the EU is cherry picking, they laid out the set arrangements that they could agree with the UK (single market, EEA, FTA etc.) In these guidelines they are claiming that only an FTA is possible due to the UK's red lines, yet they're adding stipulations such as 'level playing field' on top - what other FTA do they have where they require this from the other side?

Plenty of FTA's have level playing field requirements - Generally only with third world nations, but the EU has foresight i suppose.

[Tinch]

The scope of access to the service markets in the TTIP is on a completely different scale than what we have now and what the UK seeks to retain. You are either being disingenuous or don't understand the differences.

I mean just go through the document and note on how many of those restrictions are not valid when the other state is an EU member. And remember that the UK is willing to make no concessions to avoid regulatory divergence other than vague statements that are always followed by an intent to seek such divergence. Heck I am not sure a FTA is even possible with such a stance.

How can you say that when we don't know the specifics of what the UK is even requesting yet? All they have said is that they accept they will lose passporting rights, but would still like to come to an agreement with EU that maintains as close ties as possible to mitigate the effects on these services.

Barnier has said that financial services will be 'excluded' from Brexit negotiations, but was open to discussing them during TTIP negotiations - that's the contradictory positions I'm trying to get at.