Will Brexit happen?

Sailtheworld

cognoscente said:

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.

I've addressed this already. It's mutually advantageous for the Canadian's to fish their own waters and for the EU to fish EU waters. Likewise we don't go to France to harvest the grapes and make the wine ourselves because it isn't mutually advantageous to do so. That's all that matters really (apart from the politicking really).

Geography plays a part so you can see why fisheries would be more of a hot topic between the EU and UK than between the EU and Canada. Skills matter too - French grapes just so happen to grow well where there's an abundance of skilled winemakers and winemaking equipment (what a lucky coincidence). 

As for the EU being welcome to buy as much as our fish as they want you're just demonstrating a shallowness of thinking. It's usually better to trade higher up the value chain but if it's more advantageous for the UK to let EU boats catch it themselves why would we choose the less advantageous route?

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

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.

It's an organised shopping list. You know how negotiations work so don't try and get me to teach you how to suck eggs.

I wonder if we're going to send David Davis armed with nothing but a bemused look on his face? Has anyone got a spare pen they can lend him?

By the way nobody really cares about red lines least of all yours. The fishermen's votes as well as those who got drawn into the lobbying are in the bag. We've left the EU, the Tories have a large majority and at least another 5 years in office so if the UK negotiating teams see an advantage in accepting the terms above even if it's to force an EU compromise elsewhere they'll do so.

Fishermen will just have to suck it up and remind themselves they won. Besides Newlyn will make a lovely Marina.

Moe_The_Bartender

Sailtheworld said:

cognoscente said:

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.

I've addressed this already. It's mutually advantageous for the Canadian's to fish their own waters and for the EU to fish EU waters. Likewise we don't go to France to harvest the grapes and make the wine ourselves because it isn't mutually advantageous to do so. That's all that matters really (apart from the politicking really).

Geography plays a part so you can see why fisheries would be more of a hot topic between the EU and UK than between the EU and Canada. Skills matter too - French grapes just so happen to grow well where there's an abundance of skilled winemakers and winemaking equipment (what a lucky coincidence). 

As for the EU being welcome to buy as much as our fish as they want you're just demonstrating a shallowness of thinking. It's usually better to trade higher up the value chain but if it's more advantageous for the UK to let EU boats catch it themselves why would we choose the less advantageous route?

We don’t go to France to harvest their grapes because they’re not ours to harvest. For the same reason, the fish in our waters are not for others to take without our agreement. Surely you can understand the difference.

The French want continued access regardless because they have had access since 1973 and they only got access then because the EEC rushed the Common Fisheries Policy through so we had to allow it as part of the price of joining. We are no longer members and therefore no longer subject to the CFP. It really is quite simple.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

cognoscente said:

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.

I've addressed this already. It's mutually advantageous for the Canadian's to fish their own waters and for the EU to fish EU waters. Likewise we don't go to France to harvest the grapes and make the wine ourselves because it isn't mutually advantageous to do so. That's all that matters really (apart from the politicking really).

Geography plays a part so you can see why fisheries would be more of a hot topic between the EU and UK than between the EU and Canada. Skills matter too - French grapes just so happen to grow well where there's an abundance of skilled winemakers and winemaking equipment (what a lucky coincidence). 

As for the EU being welcome to buy as much as our fish as they want you're just demonstrating a shallowness of thinking. It's usually better to trade higher up the value chain but if it's more advantageous for the UK to let EU boats catch it themselves why would we choose the less advantageous route?

We don’t go to France to harvest their grapes because they’re not ours to harvest. For the same reason, the fish in our waters are not for others to take without our agreement. Surely you can understand the difference.

The French want continued access regardless because they have had access since 1973 and they only got access then because the EEC rushed the Common Fisheries Policy through so we had to allow it as part of the price of joining. We are no longer members and therefore no longer subject to the CFP. It really is quite simple.

The fish in our waters are ours and the grapes in Bordeaux belong to the French. Why try and twist things to try and make it look as though I think either can be just taken without agreement? If there's a mutual benefit, by agreement (as if it needs saying) to us collecting their grapes and making our own wine and / or them collecting our fish for their own consumption what exactly is the issue? Why would we choose a less beneficial option?

I really don't understand the hangup about fishing. Landings by UK vessels are around £1bn. By contrast Rolls Royce turn over £15bn. If there's a benefit to the UK to allowing French vessels access to British waters I can't see an issue subject to proper controls etc. If you think they should be banned on principle I'm sure we can agree to differ.

Moe_The_Bartender

We finally appear to be getting somewhere but let me remind you that what triggered this discussion was that you said that all trade deals included a demand by one party that the other should let them have access to their natural resources. The EU paper released today asks for precisely that. They have never requested such a thing in any of their previous trade deals and any access should be ours to grant under strict conditions.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

We finally appear to be getting somewhere but let me remind you that what triggered this discussion was that you said that all trade deals included a demand by one party that the other should let them have access to their natural resources. The EU paper released today asks for precisely that. They have never requested such a thing in any of their previous trade deals and any access should be ours to grant under strict conditions.

You need to stop putting words in my mouth. What I said was that trade involves the transfer of natural resources albeit it may have had some value added first i.e. potatoes turned into chips / grapes into wine etc. You've taken umbridge at the French wanting (DEMANDING no less - sorry I got a bit Daily Mail) continued access to UK waters as part of the trade deal. Surely the problem isn't that the EU have never requested this of Canada, Japan or Mexico - that would be non-nonsensical - I can just imagine the boorish guffaws if the EU announced UK trawlers could fish in Japanese waters.

It's easy to see why the French want access. It's the current status quo, the fisheries are productive (I think) and it's somewhat easier for EU vessels to fish British waters than Mexican. Apart from the actual catching no value is being added so a catch and collect deal doesn't damage a long value chain (like buying grapes direct would). Fishing is also dangerous - I wonder how many British dead men walking there are, for example, because we now import coal from Russia & Columbia?

As Whoosh!, but..., but... cognoscente reminds us; this is a valuable negotiating card. Surely you're hoping that the French / EU will also value it out of all proportion to it's economic importance and be willing to make disproportionate concessions elsewhere? I bet the UK negotiating team are hoping so. To put this into context (again) Rolls Royce did a deal with Emirates last year for 50 Trent Engines which was worth about $16bn i.e. 4 engines are a bigger turnover than the UK fishing fleet's annual landings and there's going to be somewhat more added value associated with an aero engine than a Whiting too.

If people think that on principle foreigners shouldn't be allowed to fish in UK waters no matter what that's fine but they should be honest and say so because then we know it's not a trade discussion and we can all stop wasting our time. The reality of the situation is there's a price to pay for access to UK waters and it's up for negotiation.

gfplux

Moe_The_Bartender said:

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.

Thank for the link to the EU’s negotiating document.
i believe the UK are due to publish their own document on Thursday morning.
looking forward to that.

movilogo

Can't imagine this thread is still alive even after Brexit has happened. 

cognoscente

movilogo said:

Can't imagine this thread is still alive even after Brexit has happened. 

Just shows how many haters there are, still trying to thwart Brexit. Or if that fails (which we mostly know it has) think of any excuse you can to prove Brexit is bad, never mind that it'll probably never be conclusively proven whether it's truly beneficial or not just like EU membership.   

gfplux

movilogo said:

Can't imagine this thread is still alive even after Brexit has happened. 

The title of the thread is misleading.
Britain has left the EU and is now in the transition period that ends at the end of the year.
during the transition period Britain and the EU will try to agree a trade deal.
Johnson said  it would be easy as he has an oven ready Brexit deal and the EU said it would be difficult to agree a trade deal before the end of the transition period.

Now Johnson is saying it does not matter and Britain can leave without a deal if necessary and the EU is saying it will be difficult to agree a trade deal before the end of the transition period.

As many Brexiters said they were happy with WTO trading terms they may get their wish.