The significance of next week seemingly being that it is not this week, but not as late as the week after.
Basically EU leaders hoping as they have been for some months that the UK will show realism about the final deal. ft.com/content/542521…
The fundamental problem being this.
(it is worth noting that it is normal in trade talks to declare a deal before all elements are finalised, but when both sides are confident there will be a deal. Clearly they aren't, yet.)
The UK government's language about the deal has not helped. By claiming the EU need for level playing field measures is some kind of desperate attempt to keep the UK under EU law, regardless of the content, it makes it harder to claim victory if such content remains.
But above all when thinking about an EU deal stop thinking of whether the two sides can come up with an arrangement on fish that seems fair between them (yes), and start thinking about whether the PM can make a deal palatable to the ERG or break with them (who knows?).
So, bluntly with regard to the UK-EU deal (and this is the interpretation EU Member States and the Commission share)
I fear this is correct. Though with a lot of blame-shifting by participants. Think whoever decided to brand normal contents of a trade agreement a threat to UK sovereignty if included in an EU trade deal deserves particular blame. Similarly those misleading about NI Protocol.
Would also love to know what the UK negotiators' plan was to overcome internal opposition from the ERG. If it was "we'll get a deal they will be fine with" then there was a fatal flaw at the start making negotiations largely pointless.
Also if the plan of the UK side was that the EU would suddenly yield at the last minute, then it wasn't strong to start with, and failed to take account of the chances a genuine EU-crisis emerged (always likely, there are several each year) dw.com/en/hungary-pol…
When thinking about Global Britain, the real not pretend one, I tend to start with our openness to inward movement of people and capital, and the threats to these.
Wanting more exports doesn't make you a supporter of free trade. If that's the emphasis, probably the opposite.
Global Britain after a referendum won by appealing to protectionism was always going to be a stretch. Interesting that in both the US and UK the previously pro free trade party is struggling to understand what it thinks about trade.
And while on the theme of free trade and the backlash to it. do keep wondering if one of the most important things we need to do is ensure services production / export is thought as important as goods.
Well this is rather awkward for a UK claiming to want to be a leader of free trade, but recorded in the only global guide of its type as imposing more harmful restrictions on trade than any other G20 country this year.
As I've previously suggested serious trade commentators outside the UK don't take at all seriously the UK government's talk of being a leader of free trade, given we are imposing significant new barriers to trade with the support of supposedly pro free market thinktanks.
Take a look at the difference between an EU deal and no-deal as outlined in this thread. A country that believed in free trade would be going for the deal, knowing that free trade does involve limiting government rights to intervene in markets.
Odd briefings going on here. The reference to next Tuesday is rather random (the landing zone has been known for weeks) in a story otherwise dominated by naming and shaming Cabinet ministers wanting a deal. Thus looks mostly like blame preparation (for deal or not).
Note the language - "bind Britain to Brussels rules forever". As per yesterday, not the language of a mature consideration of the issues. The negotiation that matters is inside number 10, not with the EU.
This line is also doing the rounds. It demonstrates how badly mangled communications about Free Trade Agreements have been in the UK - they are mostly about reduction of tariffs, not the more important non-tariff barriers. But still better than nothing.
So, another crucial week in UK-EU talks. Not the first, far from the last. And bluntly, right now we are on course for no deal. Nothing to do with the content outstanding, which is eminently solvable, but the language on both sides. It isn't the language of deals. 1/n
The reported outstanding EU-UK content. Fish, where the outcome is somewhere between the UK having all, and status quo. State Aid, where shared principles have been proposed. Level Playing Field, which we see in all trade deals. And Internal Market Bill / Northern Ireland. 2/
The solutions to outstanding EU / UK content. Fish - splits in various ways. State Aid - UK accept, ultimately not a major constraint. Level Playing Field - similar. Northern Ireland - implement the protocol sensitively as per existing discussions. Easy? Sadly... 3/