EU Trade Talks Thread

[Blah Blah]

I suspect the power balance in NI is about to change, depending on what coalition manages to form itself. So no, by the time any bridge is built, we will already be wherever we are heading.

[stepdown]

Sajid Javid has set out his "vision" for how the financial services will be impacted:

https://www.cityam.com/ill-give-the-city-the-flexibility-it-needs-to-thrive-outside-the-eu/

Generally pretty woolly cakeism, but looks like they'll start off on the basis of equivalence with a view to diverge over time:

"As we leave the EU with the same rules, achieving equivalence on day one should not be complicated. Of course, each side will only grant equivalence if it believes the other?s regulations are compatible. But compatible does not mean identical, and both the UK and the EU have at different times recognised the importance of focusing on regulatory outcomes."

[Blah Blah]

Financial services are such a huge part of the economy that the government would be foolish to jeopardize that in any way. But this is why I think the EU will force their way on fishing, in return for that continued EU passport for the City. At the end of the day, money talks and the power of the City on government policy can not be underestimated.

[pk]

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sajid Javid has set out his "vision" for how the

> financial services will be impacted:

> https://www.cityam.com/ill-give-the-city-the-flexi

> bility-it-needs-to-thrive-outside-the-eu/

>

> Generally pretty woolly cakeism, but looks like

> they'll start off on the basis of equivalence with

> a view to diverge over time:

> "As we leave the EU with the same rules, achieving

> equivalence on day one should not be complicated.

> Of course, each side will only grant equivalence

> if it believes the other?s regulations are

> compatible. But compatible does not mean

> identical, and both the UK and the EU have at

> different times recognised the importance of

> focusing on regulatory outcomes."

not exacting taking back control and writing our own rules is it

[stepdown]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> not exacting taking back control and writing our

> own rules is it

Yeah, his idea that "we will have the freedom to make our own rules outside the constraints of the Single Market and customs union" and "will no longer be rule-takers" is obviously naive. If you want equivalence equivalent to the Single Market, you'll need rules equivalent to the rules of the Single Market.

The FT already did a fairly thorough evisceration of the rhetoric:

https://www.ft.com/content/9623b8a2-4c3a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

[diable rouge]

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you want equivalence equivalent to the Single Market,

> you'll need rules equivalent to the rules of the

> Single Market.

I suspect for Brexiters it's more about who is making those rules than what the rules actually say.

Likewise for those 4,200 laws/directives that most Brexiters can't name any. It's a dislike that the laws were made by the EU, not whether they might actually be beneficial. The fact that we were a major player in the EU doesn't seem to register, it's not enough for them. The question is what would it take for them to change this isolationist mindset. How do you counter something that is ideological and absolutist over cooperative and pragmatic? I'm not even sure economic damage will change minds for a lot of them...

[stepdown]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I suspect for Brexiters it's more about who is

> making those rules than what the rules actually

> say.

Completely agree. While the principle of sovereignty is compatible with the UK unilaterally deciding to follow all EU regulations because it's in its best interests, in practice we end up in the same position we were in before with no seat at the table to influence the regulations.

[keano77]

?...The question is what would it take for them to change this isolationist mindset ... ?

It?s hardly isolationist to want to trade with the whole world without saying ?please sir?

[diable rouge]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It?s hardly isolationist to want to trade with the

> whole world without saying ?please sir?

Add exceptionalism to the list...

[stepdown]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It?s hardly isolationist to want to trade with the

> whole world without saying ?please sir?

Your last post suggested that "the EU will be paying us ?10 Billion a year" for the privilege of a free trade agreement. We probably could forgo such politeness in the trade negotiations if we were to accept your assumption that the "EU is crapping it?s pants" but that would require us to ignore reality.

[Blah Blah]

Plus we already do trade with the whole world. So this is not about freedom to trade, but how the terms of trade are arrived at - i.e. who owns the trade agreement. We currently enjoy the benefits of a huge trade deficit (for them) with the US. That will be the first thing to be cancelled out by the US in any trade negotiations.

For me, the issue is how to get some leave voters to stop trotting out the same factually incorrect statements parrot fashion, fed to them by the likes of Mogg and Farage. The 'we can now trade with the whole world' being a case in point, when we already do that.

[stepdown]

Boris Johnson's attempt to rebrand leaving on WTO terms (itself a rebrand of a No Deal exit) as the "Australian model" has been rightly mocked:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/ursula-von-der-leyen-mocks-boris-johnsons-stance-on-eu-trade-deal

?Australia without any doubt is a strong and a like-minded partner,? Von der Leyen told MEPs. ?But the European Union does not have a trade agreement with Australia. We are currently trading on WTO terms. And if this is the British choice, well, we are fine with that without any question. But, in fact, we just are in the moment where we are agreeing with Australia that we must end this situation and we work in a trade deal with them.?

[keano77]

I?ve been dipping in and out of the Guardian?s coverage of the address to the EU Parliament.

Understandably there?s a lot of bluff and bluster going on as the EU squares up for what will be difficult trade talks ahead.

One thing that is already apparent is that Michel Barnier will not have such an easy ride as he did with the Brexit negotiations where there was EU unanimity as to the integrity of the union.

Individual EU countries are already making demands on him to protect their vested interests - preserving the status quo for fishing rights for France, Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands for example.

Barnier will have to balance competing EU interests, provide a deal with fewer benefits of full membership, try to tie the U.K. to EU rules and maintain a level playing field.

A poisoned chalice indeed.

[pk]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?ve been dipping in and out of the Guardian?s

> coverage of the address to the EU Parliament.

>

> Understandably there?s a lot of bluff and bluster

> going on as the EU squares up for what will be

> difficult trade talks ahead.

>

> One thing that is already apparent is that Michel

> Barnier will not have such an easy ride as he did

> with the Brexit negotiations where there was EU

> unanimity as to the integrity of the union.

>

> Individual EU countries are already making demands

> on him to protect their vested interests -

> preserving the status quo for fishing rights for

> France, Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands for

> example.

>

> Barnier will have to balance competing EU

> interests, provide a deal with fewer benefits of

> full membership, try to tie the U.K. to EU rules

> and maintain a level playing field.

>

> A poisoned chalice indeed.

Sounds like we?ll have to suck up most of the current rules then, or go no deal

[Seabag]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> keano77 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I?ve been dipping in and out of the Guardian?s

> > coverage of the address to the EU Parliament.

> >

> > Understandably there?s a lot of bluff and

> bluster

> > going on as the EU squares up for what will be

> > difficult trade talks ahead.

> >

> > One thing that is already apparent is that

> Michel

> > Barnier will not have such an easy ride as he

> did

> > with the Brexit negotiations where there was EU

> > unanimity as to the integrity of the union.

> >

> > Individual EU countries are already making

> demands

> > on him to protect their vested interests -

> > preserving the status quo for fishing rights

> for

> > France, Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands

> for

> > example.

> >

> > Barnier will have to balance competing EU

> > interests, provide a deal with fewer benefits

> of

> > full membership, try to tie the U.K. to EU

> rules

> > and maintain a level playing field.

> >

> > A poisoned chalice indeed.

>

> Sounds like we?ll have to suck up most of the

> current rules then, or go no deal

No deal?

Don?t you mean ?An Australia deal? 🧐🤥

[JohnL]

I don't know what Barnier means by the below - but it seems something like "pull the other one it's got bells on"

?I?d like to take this opportunity to make it clear to certain people in the United Kingdom authority that they should not kid themselves about this. There will not be general open-ended ongoing equivalence in financial services, nor other management or financial agreements with the United Kingdom,? Barnier said. ?We will keep control of these tools, and we will retain the free-hand to take our own decisions.?

[stepdown]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?There will not be general open-ended

> ongoing equivalence in financial services, nor

> other management or financial agreements with the

> United Kingdom,? Barnier said. ?We will keep

> control of these tools, and we will retain the

> free-hand to take our own decisions.?

Given how they negotiated the withdrawal agreement, dismissing this as "bluff and bluster" seems foolhardy.

[TheCat]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> stepdown Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sajid Javid has set out his "vision" for how

> the

> > financial services will be impacted:

> >

> https://www.cityam.com/ill-give-the-city-the-flexi

>

> > bility-it-needs-to-thrive-outside-the-eu/

> >

> > Generally pretty woolly cakeism, but looks like

> > they'll start off on the basis of equivalence

> with

> > a view to diverge over time:

> > "As we leave the EU with the same rules,

> achieving

> > equivalence on day one should not be

> complicated.

> > Of course, each side will only grant

> equivalence

> > if it believes the other?s regulations are

> > compatible. But compatible does not mean

> > identical, and both the UK and the EU have at

> > different times recognised the importance of

> > focusing on regulatory outcomes."

>

> not exacting taking back control and writing our

> own rules is it

Does this not provide scope for the ability to offer different services for different markets? Ie. Follow all the same rules of equivalence for products sold into the EU. But for domestic financial products, or to third countries such as the US, there can be different regulations.

I'm not sure how familiar people on here are with the MiFID 2 directives (specifically research unbundling) which came into effect 2 years ago, and by common consensus have achieved very little of the 'transparency' they were meant to achieve, and have actually been a killer to competetive markets in equity broking, and have contributed to a steep decline in the level of investors knowledge on markets (both into and retail investors). There have also been around 75000 job losses in finance in europe over the past 2 years, with MiFID 2 regs being seen as a large driver of that. So....I see brexit as an opportunity for the city to row back much of the unbundling of research, and improve the research provision to domestic asset managers and retail investors, while still ensuring that any passport research services into Europe remain unbundled.

Long story short....I don't see any major reason we can't have different regs where appropriate for financial services. It's not like you're manufacturing a totally different car....its a service which lends itself to being more flexible....

[Sephiroth]

Another view re Mifid 2:

https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/eu-targets-post-brexit-london-in-shake-up-of-mifid-ii-research-rules/a1321186

Specifics aside - I would say that in the 2 and a half years, the EU have consistently been significantly way more prepared and serious than any UK govt in discussions. They understand the impacts better and are better prepared

And all I'm seeing from the UK side now is even more bluster

[stepdown]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Follow all the same rules of equivalence for

> products sold into the EU. But for domestic

> financial products, or to third countries such as

> the US, there can be different regulations.

Potentially, but I guess you'd need a new fund/structure for every single product/service and assuming you don't subject products being sold abroad to domestic regulation? I mean, the devil's in the detail.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Long story short....I don't see any major reason

> we can't have different regs where appropriate for

> financial services.

No reason at all, other than they can't be sold to markets with incompatible regulations.

[ianr]

> a steep decline in the level of investors knowledge

> on markets (both into and retail investors).

I take it the "into" is a typo or machine guess, but haven't yet lit on what it should be.

[TheCat]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > a steep decline in the level of investors

> knowledge

> > on markets (both into and retail investors).

>

> I take it the "into" is a typo or machine guess,

> but haven't yet lit on what it should be.

My apols....Insto (I.e. institutional investor)

[JohnL]

Sackings to change direction - McVey and Leadsome and Cox and Julian Smith. George Freeman the Transport minister gone too - but surely that's the legacy of Chris Grayling. Add Theresa Villiers too.

Meanwhile Jacob Rees Mogg muses about the weather.

[Blah Blah]

The AG has gone too. It is who those sacked are replaced with that will signal the direction. A new cabinet full of yes people would be my guess.

[JohnL]

Seems to be Julian Smith (NI) who most seem to think was a bit unfairly treated.