[noemon]

A view from across the pond.

The result of the deal is that the European Union retains all of its current advantages in trading, particularly with goods, and the U.K. loses all of its current advantages in the trade for services. The outcome of this trade negotiation is precisely what happens with most trade deals:

— Tom Kibasi, former director of the Institute for Public Policy Research

That the deal does not cover services is a well-known fact for ages now. FTA's do not normally cover services and the UK has been openly persistent that it only wants an FTA. Despite that, the UK won this battle too as it secured clauses of equivalence for UK financial services in the EU market.

The larger party gets what it wants and the smaller party rolls over.

If you say that often you might actually believe it yourself. The EU lost its battle with the UK on all its red lines and marked fronts, it did not get an automatic "level-playing field" managed by the ECJ, and lost its fishing access too. Most importantly it failed to impose its demand that British fishing protectionism could result in sanctions against car parts for example, fishing protectionism can result in fishing tariffs but not car parts tariffs that was a key EU demand. That kind of EU religious mentality to intertwine trade clauses so that it maintains leverage was defeated in its entirety and that is a huge plus not just for the UK but also for the other EU countries too. The EU's defeat on these negotiations is a positive thing for everybody.

While the UK may be the smaller partner when compared to the EU as a whole, the UK is still one of the most powerful European countries that is indeed the senior partner with most(if not all) individual EU governments, the trade balance is in the UK's favour as the EU has a significant trade surplus with the UK that would have evaporated under a no-deal scenario and worst of all, the EU now has a significant country on her back yard that proactively disagrees with its economic and political mojo disrupting EU "harmony" and has not gained anything to show for in return. The disruption of the EU's harmony is a positive thing and absolutely necessary for civilisation as a whole. EU orthodoxy has caused massive problems to the economies of European countries as well as their culture.

This British slap can be catalytic for Europe to rethink a few things and reposition its ideology in this new brave Covid world out there.

Britain has now positioned itself as the strongest European country overall with one of the most competitive tax systems in the world, an ultra liberal government, Guy Ritchie, unfettered access in the European market and no EU orthodoxy to follow. Several UK ports will become "free" by the end of next year that meaning they will become tax-free zones for international shippers to take advantage of.

The financial services in the UK have been thrown under the bus indeed ever since Boris became PM as it became explicitly clear that the FTA would not cover services but I don't think any eyelid will bat with bankers losing a couple of trillions in financial products. The financial industry was heading for an overhaul anyway since 2008 and in the new era financial services will not be as centre-stage as they had been the past few decades. Boris decided to sacrifice a part of them for the other stuff he got and very many Brexiteers as well as Remainers agreed with his strategic choice. Banking is big today in relation with the rest of the economy but that will not be so in the new information era. It is an over-saturated industry in urgent need of an overhaul.

[ingliz]

disrupting EU "harmony"

As @JohnRawls has already said, there is a clause in the agreement that allows the EU to shit on you from a great height if you attempt to do that.

[noemon]

If you say that often you might actually believe it too.

I'm sincerely curious though as to why you would consider such a thing as bad? Why should EU harmony and orthodoxy not be disrupted?

Europe has flourished under competition and has floundered under harmonious orthodoxy.

But what am I even asking? you are a commie supporter of Stalin and the USSR, so your calls for harmony, saturation, orthodoxy and general bleakness are just parts of your inner being.

Sorry for the ideological loss.

The clause John posted applies to both UK and EU and is as watered down as it could possibly be. The EU was pushing for this clause to be several pages long with the ECJ in it and lots of intertwining, it got nothing of what it asked for but a 4 sentence paragraph that was Boris's key ask. Even this paragraph has been written by the UK and not by the EU and that is evident to anyone understanding the language of the 2 organisations.

[Varilion]

"But the UK – he did not quite say – does not share in that guilty remorse, and is proud of the independent and courageous role it played in the events of the last century. The consolidation and diminishing of national power which seemed the morally right path for so many European states was not appropriate or comfortable for us."

Did Johnson really say that? Is this really what people think in the UK?

The result of the deal is that the European Union retains all of its current advantages in trading, particularly with goods, and the U.K. loses all of its current advantages in the trade for services. The outcome of this trade negotiation is precisely what happens with most trade deals: The larger party gets what it wants and the smaller party rolls over.

— Tom Kibasi, former director of the Institute for Public Policy Research

I also see it pretty much like that. I mean at the end it looks like an hard brexit, where the only thing which is "spared" are the tariffs which will stay to 0. Because this is at the end of the day beneficial for both sides. I hope next week we will be able to read some comprehensive analysis.

Does anyone exactly know how is sorted out the Irish issue? Is there going to be the "Irish Sea border"? e.g. EU regulations still apply to Northern Ireland which in return remains in the single market?

[B0ycey]

Well we all should be happy that both sides are happy. Although I find John's point irrelevant and it can be applied both ways. But he's happy and nobody else gives a shit so what does it matter to me I guess. And Ingliz is happy that these clearing houses can eventually move to Europe and that financial services don't have the same passporting or whatever. He seems to not care that the UK never even asked for these as perhaps there was good reason for it. But he's happy and that is all that matters to him. And I am happy that we have kept European cooperation in some important sectors in Security and science so I am happy. So if everyone is happy, why are we trying to convince everyone that they should not be happy. Perhaps it's because nobody is really happy.

[noemon]

The EU has been going on for months and even years about the "level-playing field", "fair competition", "racing to the bottom". The EU is still pretending that it managed to force the UK into some corner to accept that and several Europeans like the bliss of believing what they hear from what I can tell. But consider this, Boris has already tabled legislation for UK free ports in the model of Singapore as well as a bunch of other exciting things and he has got the all-clear to do all that without any hindrance(or tariffs) from the EU.

Not only the clause John posted is absolutely toothless but noone in the EU has the tooth to actually start this fight with the UK. As you understand this clause is there only for exceptional circumstances when things such as dumping are identified. The UK has not engaged in this practice for possibly centuries and there is no indication it will be doing industrial-scale dumping in the EU which is what China has been doing for years.

If you want to put things into perspective, the presence of Malta, Luxembourg and other tax-havens in the EU make it impossible for the EU to impose anything to the UK as those countries have enabled such a lax playing field that anything goes and international law as well as international arbitrators take consideration of these things much more effectively than the ECJ who emulates EU narratives such as "special circumstances apply due to size & location".

[ingliz]

he has got the all-clear to do all that without any hindrance(or tariffs) from the EU.

Wrong!

Rules of origin will still apply and tariffs will be paid as 'insufficiently' processed goods leave the freeport and enter the EU or UK domestic markets.

[noemon]

During the financial crisis, the European press had managed to convince Europeans of several big lies:

"They will never pay back their debts". This enormous lie(that has never in history applied to a medium or small country) was absolutely necessary to justify the Northern European hate narrative against the South, the closure of Greek banks by orders of the German Finance Minister and so many more things. Of course small and medium countries have never had their debt forgiven and the hilarious part was at the time this was being said was also the time that Greece was paying upfront the forward looking EU and IMF loans. They were saying that during the time that Greece was paying the biggest chunks of EU debt while trying to secure a loan to pay for a loan. Still Europeans believed it, even kind-hearted neutral ones and went with it. Kind and honest people figured since Greece will never repay anything then she should obviously has no say in anything and should just be ignored as a basket-case. This narrative(German fake news) was deployed very effectively against Greece and that is why few bat an eye-lid when the German finance minister ordered the closure of Greek banks breaking all EU protocol & custom. Noone bat an eyelid when days later Merkel invited ALL the migrants and refugees to go to Germany as a show of kind-heartedness to balance the scales of German evil.

Today the EU is trying to deploy a similar narrative that the "UK will or has to follow EU rules into perpetuity" and this has the intention of becoming common knowledge in the EU regardless of truth. The reason is obvious. "If you have to follow EU rules forever then why leave?"

It is a matter of profound significance that people do not fall for fake news again so that the conversation can take place without religious hindrance.

@ingliz

Saying that rules of origin will apply is the equivalent of saying that the sky is blue. Not an argument in any way mate. Products going into the EU market will follow EU regulations, same with Europeans products in China. That's not saying anything.

[Rugoz]

I have yet to read a good analysis of this deal, especially compared to alternative arrangements.

A boring conclusion to lots of stupid drama.

[ingliz]

Products going into the EU market will follow EU regulations

So why do you think of freeports as a game-changer and not a buzzword? Tariffs will be levied on 'insufficiently' processed goods by the EU, negating any advantage gained.

[JohnRawls]

If you say that often you might actually believe it too.

I'm sincerely curious though as to why you would consider such a thing as bad? Why should EU harmony and orthodoxy not be disrupted?

Europe has flourished under competition and has floundered under harmonious orthodoxy.

But what am I even asking? you are a commie supporter of Stalin and the USSR, so your calls for harmony, saturation, orthodoxy and general bleakness are just parts of your inner being.

Sorry for the ideological loss.

The clause John posted applies to both UK and EU and is as watered down as it could possibly be. The EU was pushing for this clause to be several pages long with the ECJ in it and lots of intertwining, it got nothing of what it asked for but a 4 sentence paragraph that was Boris's key ask. Even this paragraph has been written by the UK and not by the EU and that is evident to anyone understanding the language of the 2 organisations.

First of all, you bring up a valid point that disrupting EU harmony and regulations might not be a bad idea because it has become stagnant. That I do agree with.

The problem is that paragraph basically allows EU to threaten tariffs, quotas etc at any point it deems necessary. It also allows EU to unilaterally dissolve parts or the whole treaty together. Obviously UK has the same ability but I just don't see the UK exercising it as it is right now.

As for it being an FTA type deal without EU regulations and ECJ having power over the UK. Technically you are correct and EU regulations and ECJ ruling do not have direct power over the UK because of this deal so in name it can be called FTA. But since the arbitration mechanisms and the safeguard clauses allow it then there is basically a gun at the head of the UK right now and if they do not follow EU regulations, ECJ rulings or significantly deverge from anything then the gun will first threaten tariffs and quotas and then shoot if UK ignores the warning.

For a system to work in some way, you need to remove the insensitive that force the system to work in some way. I believe that having a gun to somebodies head is a far better persuader than a legal one that can be challenged in courts. The question is, to what degree does the EU want to use this option. If EU is willing then it can technically force a lot of things on the UK even its new regulations. I know it won't look good PR wise but realistically UK can't do much about it after it signed this deal. Well unless the UK wants to default to No Deal.

[B0ycey]

I have yet to read a good analysis of this deal, especially compared to alternative arrangements.

A boring conclusion to lots of stupid drama.

How about this for an analysis. No deal negotiated was ever going to be better than the current deal for both sides and the only part of the deal that anyone cares about for some reason was the trade arrangements. The 98% which was actually the only important part of this deal is largely ignored and was agreed quite quickly as it was mutually beneficial to do so - along with being the part of the deal that wasn't politicalised. So long as the UK could make its own trade deals and not be tied to the ECJ they would have been happy with whatever. And as long as the EU could protect their single market they would have been happy with whatever. The simplist thing to go around that would have been to organise a trade deal with tariffs. But for some unknown reason nobody wanted to do that. And things only began to change course once Leyen came up with an idea that actually could work. Until then we were heading for no deal by default. Which from a trade aspect wouldn't have mattered too much. The only issue was the 98% that was actually important in this deal was tied into a trade arrangement. It was all or nothing, which was retarded. But whatever, everyone is happy and in four years time Labour will come into power, realign alliances, bring us into some of the cooperations the Tories didn't want us to join and eventually we will return back into the club when it is right to do so.

[Rugoz]

The problem is that paragraph basically allows EU to threaten tariffs, quotas etc at any point it deems necessary. It also allows EU to unilaterally dissolve parts or the whole treaty together. Obviously UK has the same ability but I just don't see the UK exercising it as it is right now.

Nah. AFAIK there will be an arbitration tribunal with equal representation that will decide what measures are an appropriate response to violations of either side. Also, I think future EU regulation is irrelevant, only what has been agreed upon in this deal.

Kind of like the CETA tribunal.

[noemon]

As for it being an FTA type deal without EU regulations and ECJ having power over the UK. Technically you are correct and EU regulations and ECJ ruling do not have direct power over the UK because of this deal so in name it can be called FTA. But since the arbitration mechanisms and the safeguard clauses allow it then there is basically a gun at the head of the UK right now and if they do not follow EU regulations, ECJ rulings or significantly deverge from anything then the gun will first threaten tariffs and quotas and then shoot if UK ignores the warning.

For a system to work in some way, you need to remove the insensitive that force the system to work in some way. I believe that having a gun to somebodies head is a far better persuader than a legal one that can be challenged in courts. The question is, to what degree does the EU want to use this option. If EU is willing then it can technically force a lot of things on the UK even its new regulations. I know it won't look good PR wise but realistically UK can't do much about it after it signed this deal. Well unless the UK wants to default to No Deal.

As I said earlier 2 facts show us the way for the future.

1) The presence of ultra-liberal Malta, Luxembourg and others.
2) The lack of the ECJ and its replacement with international arbitration.

These 2 combined mean that the EU will not be able to argue that the UK is undercutting the EU no matter what it does unless that's dumping. For as we all know there is another "religious truth in the EU" that big EU countries cannot engage in a race to the bottom while smaller countries(or big country proxies) can. The EU does not mind as much when Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg undercut everybody else but minds quite a lot when the UK or Italy or Spain undercut each other. Surely there is a thought process behind this but that is irrelevant.

If the UK emulated Malta and Luxembourg and was under ECJ jurisdiction then EU judges would argue the point of "special circumstances" and would go on that "because of size and location" the UK's undercutting should not be compared to Malta's but to Germany's, France's or Spain's. Whether there is a point to this is irrelevant, the fact is that the ECJ would argue that but international arbitrators wouldn't. They would be like if the EU can do it via Malta and Luxembourg then so can the UK. The end. Next case.

This is such a fact that the EU has been arguing the same thing against the UK for the past few years. "We cannot give you a Canada deal because you are a special case due to the size of your economy and your proximity with Europe" meaning you are "a more dangerous competitor". In the end, they could and they did.

The UK will be holding even more cards in the future as its economy adapts to the new reality and the short-term obstacles are overcome. All the cards the EU had to play with banking, freight and port disruption have been played already and the EU has made good on using all 3 to their maximum effect to push the UK into a corner.The EU engaged in gunboat diplomacy all throughout these negotiations and that is why several Remainers became Brexiteers. These cards are now no longer on the table for the EU. The British sacrificed banking and took the port closures to freight on the chin. Now there are no more sticks but only carrots.

[ingliz]

Next case.

The trouble for you is the EU doesn't have to make a case. The agreement allows them to sanction the UK unilaterally without recourse to the courts. Play silly beggars, and you risk losing access to your biggest market.

Is it worth it?

[B0ycey]

Access? You mean are tariffs worth it? Depends who you ask. And being this is about a level playing field the arbitrary will make them fair and whomever disagrees is the party who wants tariffs because that is the option if you disagree with it.

[noemon]

The trouble for you is the EU doesn't have to make a case. The agreement allows them to sanction the UK unilaterally without recourse to the courts. Play silly beggars, and you risk losing access to your biggest market.

Is it worth it?

You can pretend that the below is what the EU wanted but it isn't. It is what the UK wanted to the dot.

If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature,
including in relation to fishing activities and their dependent communities, that are liable to persist
arise, the Party concerned may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard
measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in
order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to those measures which will least disturb the
functioning of this Agreement.

[late]

The devil will be in details that have yet to see the light of day.

[Atlantis]

It never was about tariffs. Non-tariff barriers are far more important. The French are good at using loopholes to impose non-tariff barriers. I remember the times Japanese electronic imports were held up at the bottleneck of one French port. And if they want to, they can find a reason to reduce traffic through the Channel like in the resent Covid-related travel ban. The whole of Kent could easily turn into a gigantic lorry park.

[B0ycey]

Seems like one Irish port is ahead of the game @Atlantis.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55423267

The plan originally was using new ports between France and the UK. Seems a bit of a divert to use Ireland as the new middleman for the forecoming traffic build up, but business doesn't stop. They will just use new routes. Any route by the sound of it.