Will Brexit happen?

Moe_The_Bartender

The French are accusing Boris of blackmailing the poor old EU by sticking to the timescales the EU agreed to. Tick tock !

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

eidand

gfplux said:

Coming attractions: France’s youthful Minister for Europe Amélie de Montchalin warned Boris Johnson yesterday that Paris will not be “blackmailed” into signing off anything it deems damaging to its farmers, fishermen or business leaders. She will be in London this Friday to deliver a speech at Chatham House, just a couple of days before talks get underway. What could possibly go wrong?

END QUOTE

Well, they will have to sign things because if they don't and hard Brexit does happen, they won't have access to anything anyway which means what they most want to not happen, will certainly happen. It's all just empty rhetoric.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

Yes, all of them. That's the point of trade deals - to facilitate the movement of resources for the mutual benefit of both parties.

Of course the word 'demand' adds a bit of exciting narrative to something that should be quite dull but people on both sides of the negotiating table can't help the willy waving despite having very little to wave. Presumably it's fishing that knickers are being twisted about? Hats off to the fishing industry for their lobbying - the attention that fishing gets is out of all proportion to it's economic size and strategic importance. 

cognoscente

Moe_The_Bartender said:

The French are accusing Boris of blackmailing the poor old EU by sticking to the timescales the EU agreed to. Tick tock !

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

But ........... but .............. but the UK holds no cards!  So say various rejoiners; more proof they are wrong. As usual.
I see that certain of these do not even understand what a "natural" resource is though so poor comprehension elsewhere is only to be expected I suppose.
Did the EU ask for access to Canadian waters for their fishing?
They could try Iceland again & see if that works this time around.

eidand

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

Yes, all of them. That's the point of trade deals - to facilitate the movement of resources for the mutual benefit of both parties.

Of course the word 'demand' adds a bit of exciting narrative to something that should be quite dull but people on both sides of the negotiating table can't help the willy waving despite having very little to wave. Presumably it's fishing that knickers are being twisted about? Hats off to the fishing industry for their lobbying - the attention that fishing gets is out of all proportion to it's economic size and strategic importance. 

You say that, but only seems to minuscule from UK's point of view while it seems it's quite a big point for France for example.
The point is EU will need to make concessions and instead they keep adding requirements to what we should do to get access to their market and those concessions will have to be big.

Reality will bite pretty soon and I hope our negotiating teams stay strong as the last thing EU wants is a hard Brexit. Imagine if UK starts dropping corporation tax and starts offering much better terms than anyone else. UK is small and can be very agile, make decisions quickly, while EU has to get the agreement of all members to even cross the street. This a huge chance for UK to get something meaningful done.

Sailtheworld

cognoscente said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

The French are accusing Boris of blackmailing the poor old EU by sticking to the timescales the EU agreed to. Tick tock !

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

But ........... but .............. but the UK holds no cards!  So say various rejoiners; more proof they are wrong. As usual.
I see that certain of these do not even understand what a "natural" resource is though so poor comprehension elsewhere is only to be expected I suppose.
Did the EU ask for access to Canadian waters for their fishing?
They could try Iceland again & see if that works this time around.

Fish isn't a natural resource? Well, you learn something new every day.

If the EU would like access to UK fish stocks and it's mutually advantageous for them to collect using their own boats who cares? Pretty dangerous job by all accounts - why not let Johnny Foreigner take the risk?

More Canadian fishery products are being consumed in the EU since CETA. Obviously Canada isn't as convenient for such a catch & collect deal and I suspect fishing is no less a political hot potato there.

Why don't you stop puffing out your chest and letting yourself get riled up by the media and the lobbyists that represent the fishing industry (0.1% of the UK economy by the way)? It'll be fine - Boris says so.

Moe_The_Bartender

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

Yes, all of them. That's the point of trade deals - to facilitate the movement of resources for the mutual benefit of both parties.

Of course the word 'demand' adds a bit of exciting narrative to something that should be quite dull but people on both sides of the negotiating table can't help the willy waving despite having very little to wave. Presumably it's fishing that knickers are being twisted about? Hats off to the fishing industry for their lobbying - the attention that fishing gets is out of all proportion to it's economic size and strategic importance. 

Wow! Just, wow!

Lets imagine a different conversation.

France - we want a free trade deal.
UK - so do we but in return we want your grape harvest.

just how do you think that would go down?

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

Yes, all of them. That's the point of trade deals - to facilitate the movement of resources for the mutual benefit of both parties.

Of course the word 'demand' adds a bit of exciting narrative to something that should be quite dull but people on both sides of the negotiating table can't help the willy waving despite having very little to wave. Presumably it's fishing that knickers are being twisted about? Hats off to the fishing industry for their lobbying - the attention that fishing gets is out of all proportion to it's economic size and strategic importance. 

Lets imagine a different conversation.

France - we want a free trade deal.
UK - so do we but in return we want your grape harvest.

just how do you think that would go down?

We already take a decent proportion of France's grape harvest. They produce bottles of wine and if the producer and consumer agree a price where they both benefit (after all why buy or sell if there's no benefit) then a trade takes place.

It's analogous to the fishing example. If they want fish and there's an advantage to both parties then why not let them catch it themselves? In the case of wine there's the same progress towards cutting out the middle man. Increasingly wine is produced and shipped in IBCs and bottled in the country of consumption.

The French seem to be pretty good at making wine so most would see an advantage to letting them make it and working out a trade that lets us drink it. Of course, there's nothing to stop you buying some of their grape harvest direct if you think that's advantageous or even buying some of the harvest in concentrated form to make your own wine.

The negotiation should be about finding mutual advantage rather than sitting with baited breath waiting to be offended.

Moe_The_Bartender

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

Yes, all of them. That's the point of trade deals - to facilitate the movement of resources for the mutual benefit of both parties.

Of course the word 'demand' adds a bit of exciting narrative to something that should be quite dull but people on both sides of the negotiating table can't help the willy waving despite having very little to wave. Presumably it's fishing that knickers are being twisted about? Hats off to the fishing industry for their lobbying - the attention that fishing gets is out of all proportion to it's economic size and strategic importance. 

Lets imagine a different conversation.

France - we want a free trade deal.
UK - so do we but in return we want your grape harvest.

just how do you think that would go down?

We already take a decent proportion of France's grape harvest. They produce bottles of wine and if the producer and consumer agree a price where they both benefit (after all why buy or sell if there's no benefit) then a trade takes place.

It's analogous to the fishing example. If they want fish and there's an advantage to both parties then why not let them catch it themselves? In the case of wine there's the same progress towards cutting out the middle man. Increasingly wine is produced and shipped in IBCs and bottled in the country of consumption.

The French seem to be pretty good at making wine so most would see an advantage to letting them make it and working out a trade that lets us drink it. Of course, there's nothing to stop you buying some of their grape harvest direct if you think that's advantageous or even buying some of the harvest in concentrated form to make your own wine.

The negotiation should be about finding mutual advantage rather than sitting with baited breath waiting to be offended.

Here's the EU'S negotiating mandate published today.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/42736/st05870-ad01re03-en20.pdf
Section 12 relates to fisheries and clause 89 indicates that we should continue to have access to our own waters.

The point is that the French in particular want access to our waters for the next 25 years. This is despite the fact that the EU's agreement with Norway (a member of the EEA) is renegotiated every 12 months. I don’t have a problem with reaching an agreement which gives us control of our waters but we must set out the terms of access, cost and quotas. If the French won’t accept that, then - tough.

cognoscente

Sailtheworld said:

cognoscente said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

The French are accusing Boris of blackmailing the poor old EU by sticking to the timescales the EU agreed to. Tick tock !

And has there ever been a trade deal in which one party has demanded access to the natural resources of the other?

But ........... but .............. but the UK holds no cards!  So say various rejoiners; more proof they are wrong. As usual.
I see that certain of these do not even understand what a "natural" resource is though so poor comprehension elsewhere is only to be expected I suppose.
Did the EU ask for access to Canadian waters for their fishing?
They could try Iceland again & see if that works this time around.

Fish isn't a natural resource? Well, you learn something new every day.

Whoosh!
 You really have to show us where the Canadians are invited to use EU waters as part of their trade deal, or Japan, or ...... ?
We might already take a fair bit of France's grape harvest but we don't go over there and harvest it ourselves. The EU is welcome to buy as much of our fish that we catch as they want.