Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Clickbait.

Each Swiss 100+ agreements appears separate and alone, but most are guillotine interlocked meaning if one is broken all will cease to exist. This has a major negative effect on cost/human effort needed for maintenance (changing/renegotiation) of the treaty complex. Being a one off treaty complex makes it for this reason alone special and more expensive to overlook, which require scarce qualified EU resources.

It also have had the effect that some in Switzerland thought, they could change one point without respect for the interlock. They even had and won a referendum on abolishing FoM for people, while the other three FoMs should remain. 

The EU flatly refused.

The EU insist on having all points under the same and only framework 'umbrella' - and association treaty where all common text are is written e.g. conflict resolution. It will then be obvious that opening one point for renegotiation will open all of the treaty.

Not least as small member states is it clearly in our interest to have fair and equal rules, which are not more bureaucratic than absolutely needed.

Lars 😀

PS! The WA/NIP has been agree, signed and ratified and should not be reopened. The practical problems, that can be solved within a Brexit world, should be dealt with in the 'Joint Committee' - end of story.

The starting point of any international trade agreement has to start with the current political/socio economic/humanitarian and indeed chess piece position. So when we hear about media sound bites regarding the UK and it’s ability to negotiate trade agreements to their benefit in light speed time is akin to a poor leaving cert concern debating team who are Uber confident taking on the Ursuline convent.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Brits had no experts in international trade negotiations relying on EU experts and their silver bullet was bringing in Canadians to negotiate on their behalf https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/15/uk-canada-advice-post-brexit-trade-deals-eu-ceta

But the UK were not starting from a blank canvass. Firstly, any trade agreement was going to be hampered by the fact that the trading partner was more than likely going to have a pre existing agreement with the EU. So that potential partner would be considering how the EU would adversely pull back If they agreeed a more lucrative deal with the UK. Furthermore the EU would be able to supply more products and services at better rates and better standards as there is a much larger pool and the fact the EU have existing trade agreements with worldwide partners for the source products.

Also the EU banking system and investment market and third country banking system with AsIa, americas, Australia etc means that the payment of products and service is less volatile.

Also, the fact that the UK is potentially going to flagrantly breach an international peace agreement like the GFA which is held as sacrosanct by the EU and indeed the US and can be seen as the watershed by the international community in the Ukraine illegal war means trade agreements with the UK will take longer than the plot line of a Ross Rachel on a break story.

Now honestly I’m sick to my back teeth trying to explain this and called an operation fear advocate from the beginning so I’m going to leave facts;

But even better is a caller who schooled the great James O Brien on international trade in 2018. Fcucking 4 years ago. Let that sink in

https://youtu.be/TNduNUvyq-8

And the Ukrainian war took away his backup income as a Russian agent.

There is zero appetite in the EU27 for replicating the contractual mess that is the EU-Switzerland relationship with any other country, still less with as large an economy, and as troubled a socio-political construct as the UK (England, really).

There’s also no appetite in the EU27 for the UK to ‘rejoin’ (variable geometry verb) short-term. That has been messaged consistently and comprehensively for a good couple of years now by the EU Commission, EU Parliament types and national Ministers (mostly France and Germany, to be fair), quoted in interviews or relayed by insiders via e.g. Twitter and other platforms, incl. broadsheets.

There is just too little trust and residual goodwill. The UK’s got a ton of bridges, big ones, to rebuild first. That begins by honouring and implementing what they signed up to several years ago now. And that will bring some more economic pain I’m afraid.

Labour, assuming they get in at the next GE, has got its work cut out…but they’re still in Red Wall Brexit voter-appeasing mode, so it’s not looking good for them nor for the UK. In the meantime, investment and market development choices get continually made.

but in the horizon program i think they already have a swiss stlye deal ...

https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/10/uk-and-switzerland-sign-deal-on-scientific-research-amid-horizon-snub

well switzerland is also negotiating with themselves . both dont really want it but understand they need it ....

Or an even more basic question - is there even the remotest chance that this proposal would be acceptable to the Tory party?

i belive they are both outside horizon as we speak so the have the same non deal ...

Peter, I misread your earlier posts, that is now clear from your latest. Yours are fair points.