My reading is: 15-18% of the current EU quota is proposed to be shifted to the UK. Whether that’s 15-18% of fish or 15-18% of the quota I don’t know. But it is supposed to be on top of what the UK already has. What does the UK have? Who knows. And apparently ...
It also depends on the fish. So... it’s complicated.
Was the EU offer generous or terrible? I do not know. I’d have to know existing quotas, industry capacity, speak to stakeholders. But the fact that discourse equates 18% on top of the existing share with 18% overall makes you wonder whether anything matters.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some home truths about the time left to negotiate an EU-UK FTA if we want one in place by January. Or in short: Why we're reaching the end of the road. (Thread)
This is wrong. It is utterly common for an FTA to add “unrelated conditions” about domestic regulation. Even the WTO Agreements contain an agreement on intellectual property. CPTPP has stuff on IP, environment, labour, regulatory coherence. Etc. Etc.
One of the curious issues in this regard is the term “unrelated”. When the WTO’s IP Agreement “TRIPS” was negotiated, this was a big issue. “TR” stands for “trade-related”.
Developing countries tried to take a stand - they said “we first want to know what trade-related IP rights are - and which ones aren’t”. But they lost that debate. TRIPS is a general IP agreement. “Trade-related” came to mean something more nebulous.
To those worried that 600+ pages signal concern, a short illustration of the length of trade agreements. You remember CPTPP? The one we have decided to like? OK. Let’s go there. You might have thought that it’s short and sweet, as NZ lists this 9-pager as CPTPP, right? (Thread)
Well. Look at it. It incorporates TPP. That’s Art. 1. So let’s look at what that means. Here’s the NZ website. A loooong page. Full with links. That are part of the text. How long you ask? /3 mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-…
The Trade Committee's report on UK-Japan - the Committee considers a debate as critical. Allow me to reinforce that argument with some detail. (Thread)
The Committee rightly states that UK-Japan and EU-Japan are largely similar, but differ in some respects. Let me identify one of those aspects: Intellectual Property law. /2
This is what the Committee writes in that regard: the UK-Japan FTA goes beyond the EU-Japan one. But what does this mean? /3
Seriously underpriced Brexit scenario: no deal by 1 Jan, but negotiations continue and a deal is reached later (not saying the most likely, but it is underestimated). Why? /1
1) Come January the incentive set changes. We no longer negotiate an FTA improving trade from a fictitious baseline but actually make things worse. We will really improve conditions.
2) The reason why people discount this scenario is that they think January will see a blame game add a lot of poison to the relationship.
I agree with david. IF a deal is agreed, the technical issues can be resolved. Provisional application can be decided by the Council. BUT there‘s a really important procedural aspect concerning actors to actually get a deal /1
On the EU side the Council - i.e. the EU 27 - absolutely have to be on board to get a deal. Without that a deal is categorically impossible (with that you can also get provisional application). And then... /2
there’s the EP. There’s a lot of ”they won’t vote it down” floating around. But the thing is: a) their approval is ultimately needed (even if not for provisional application) and b) unlike in the UK the Commission does not have an automatic EP majority. /3