Marcuse wrote:I'm saying that the issue with being able to negotiate tariff free access to the single market for anything was stated to be counter to the sacrosanct "four freedoms" and therefore not even up for negotiation.
I think you're confusing tariff-free access with free movement of goods. The latter will only be granted alongside the other three freedoms, the former can and has been the result of trade agreements, or the GSP.
Marcuse wrote:It's more so that the concept of negotiating access to the Single Market as a third country is either labyrinthian to the point of uselessness
International agreements are hard, Marcuse. I work with tax agreements which are bookmarkers compared to trade agreements and between EU member states they took years to agree. There was NEVER going to be a true trade agreement done in two years, not because of the EU's system (which doesn't help matters), but because no two countries would have managed that. The EU is slower than individual countries. The only issue was what kind of transition both parties were willing to accept, and how much they were willing to commit upfront.
Marcuse wrote:Fisheries and access to British territorial waters is one big area where many countries in the EU have an interest in access. The established financial section in the City of London is a huge benefit being within the EU for many large banks and other institutions and funds.
Several EU member states would be very willing to cede the fishing grounds if it meant locking the City out. My own financial minister is throwing out tax gifts to convince London's institutions to move here after Brexit. The VNO-NCW bragged in the paper 'the counter' was 'over a hundred'.
The UK will respond in kind with tax measures and regulatory shortcuts. After Brexit, we are not partners, we are rivals, and I think all parties at the table realize that. [Edit: I mean, we're rivals
now. Inter-EU struggles over these things are common. But the EU institutions actively fight it when it happens between ourselves. They will not in this case.]
Marcuse wrote:Also worth noting that as a "third country" Britain is currently in 100% regulatory alignment with the EU. Right now our standards are their standards. There's little grounds for disagreement on the basis that we do things differently when our businesses currently operate to EU standards.
Completely true. But I don’t see the UK signing on to follow and enforce all EU regulations in the future, either temporarily or permanently EEA style. I don’t truly consider that a good idea either, and neither will you, but without it, the fact that the UK has the same rules now (which they are obligated to until either an agreement is signed or 29 March rolls around) is meaningless.
cmsellers wrote: I'd heard it was basically the EU being charitable to a bunch of countries who don't trade much with the EU anyways and which used to be EU member colonies, while Wikipedia claims it's to prevent them suing at the WTO.
AFAIK it’s not related to colonialism (and as I mentioned, the EU doesn't make the list, the UN Commitee does)…. But the collective past of the whole EU covers the better part of four continents, and while some in the
list are questionable (like Nepal or Yemen), none have no colonial pages in their history. Whether it's charitable or exploitative depends on one's interpretation of economics.
As for the WTO, I think you’re referring to the most favored nation principle. The list is exempt from that principle (which if not, would let any country sue at the WTO for similar treatment) by decree of the WTO itself, again on the grounds that granting preferential treatment to developing nations would be a good thing.
The UK isn’t helped by that because hard Brexit is WTO rules. The UK would be entitled to the same treatment as any other third country, that
is the EU being 'unreasonable'. The EU countries could also be vindictive and create provisions that indirectly target UK goods (they do it to each other all the time, while the EU Courts slap them down) or even do so directly, which could invite a WTO challenge, but ‘not giving a trade deal now’ is not a grounds for a WTO lawsuit. And the EU probably
would eat any penalties, assuming the member states agree to.
cmsellers wrote:It's easy to make concessions to trading partners who don't matter, harder to make concessions to one who do.
Very true, I said as much. The EU doesn’t really care about Tuvalu’s import duties. Or Somalia’s. I believe they'd change it in a heartbeat, principles be damned, if the costs became tangible.
If there be here lesson or moral, it lies beyond the competence of him who wrote this post.
(Jack Vance, Emphyrio)