1/ The EU calculation on fish is relatively simple and very cold blooded (sorry). The latest Barnier comments reflect that.
It wants access to UK waters for its vessels and is seeking to trade for it from a position of strength.
That strength is the threat of tariffs.
It wants access to UK waters for its vessels and is seeking to trade for it from a position of strength.
That strength is the threat of tariffs.
2/ The EU wants to avoid a future negotiation where it is seeking access to UK waters without the threat of tariffs in its arsenal.
That's why it wants fish included in this deal and why Barnier wants the ability to leverage tariffs if EU vessels are locked out in the future.
That's why it wants fish included in this deal and why Barnier wants the ability to leverage tariffs if EU vessels are locked out in the future.
3/ The EU aren't stupid. If this deal locks in some access for 5 years and then goes to a bilateral negotiation untied to anything else, what does year 6 look like?
The Sun:
"PRIME MINISTER DARREN GRIMES TELLS EUROPIRATES NON FISH, NON WAY"
They want to retain leverage.
The Sun:
"PRIME MINISTER DARREN GRIMES TELLS EUROPIRATES NON FISH, NON WAY"
They want to retain leverage.
4/ As always, it is entirely legitimate to argue the UK shouldn't play ball. That when it comes to the UK's national interest, potential EU tariffs are less damaging than full control of fishing waters is beneficial.
There's a lot more to that discussion than economics.
There's a lot more to that discussion than economics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
