Sir Keir Starmer

Chippy_boy said:
I am not debating the timing issue. That is a seperate point and an FTA which includes services may be impossible by end 2020, so let's not debate that. What I was questioning was your earlier claim that an FTA which includes services was impossible. When we drilled down into that a little, we got a position where you are suggesting it is impossible because that would necessitate the EU giving same to other countries such as Canada.

My retort - having had very little opportunity to read up further - is that it would appear that the Ukraine - for example - does indeed have an agreement which covers services. So there is clearly more to it that the article you linked earlier, implies. I note you are now saying an FTA with services is possible.

And as to red lines, well we'll see. Of course the EU's current position is that the four freedoms are inseparable, but they have never been faced with the world's 5th or 6th largest economy leaving them before, nor the prospect of Singapore_on_Thames on their doorstep. Nor a credible threat from a UK PM to implement such.

Personally I do think we'll get some kind of limited deal done by December 2020 because neither side wants us to crash out without a deal. I think it will be a limited agreement which provides some provisions for goods and capital and a longer transition period on areas not yet covered, such as services. That may run for years since doing nothing and keeping the status quo may be more politically acceptable than grasping the nettle and both sides making compromises which cross red lines.
Click to expand...

Actually, I never said a FTA covering services was impossible. That is not what I think and not what I said. What I said was “Any FTA that involves zero tariffs and quotas will be no more than we have now, but will exclude services.” You asked why it must exclude services, and I replied “most favoured nation clauses in most EU trade agreements means if they allow the UK access to their services they would need to replicate that for their other trading partners.” The point about MFN clauses developed from there, but it is obvious from what I said that the problem is not that it is impossible to include agreements about services in a wider FTA, but that IF they did there would be adverse consequences. That presupposes that it is possible, albeit in my view so unlikely that it ought to be completely discounted as a serious possibility.

As to that:

1. AFAIK there aren’t any major FTAs - eg NAFTA or CTEC that cover provision of services in any meaningful way. That tells its own story.
2. I have explained already that MFN clauses in existing EU treaties mean that if we do have an agreement that covers services, the EU will have to offer the same terms to other trading partners. That does not suggest that it is impossible for a FTA to cover services, quite the contrary. What it does is consider what the consequences are of that, and raise the question whether the EU will be willing to cover services in a FTA for that reason.
3 The Ukraine does have an agreement that covers services but (a) it had to so that the EU could provide services to the Ukraine, which it does in spades, and (b) the quid pro quo is that Ukraine is subject to the ECJ jurisdiction and to EU regulations. The UK simply isn’t going to agree to those terms.
4 Switzerland too has an agreement that covers services, but again, that is a market that the EU was keen to break into, and as you can see the quid pro quo’s are that Switzerland accepts FOM and a budgetary contribution to the EU.

I think it is inevitable for these and many other reasons that any FTA will either completely disregard services, or will make very limited provision in terms of services. My view is is that it will completely disregard them.

I agree we will probably have a deal by December. It will leave us worse off than we were before, but will be trumpeted as a triumph and lots of people will swallow that. It certainly won’t deal with services. A longer transition is probably the best we can hope for, but as I’ve already said to a large extent that’s shutting the stable door long after the horse - well, a trillion horses TBH - has bolted.

The threat to the EU if it allows us to retain in effect three of the four freedoms and jettison FOM is existential. If the uk can have an a la carte deal why can’t France? Or Germany? Quite apart from the fact that the four freedoms are inextricably intertwined, just as they are in a real market, it would be political suicide for the EU to reward the UK for leaving. Trust me, the EU saw Singapore on Thames coming a long time ago, that’s why they’re making noises about level playing fields. If we start to implement Singapore on Thames by eroding workers rights and quality standards they will reduce our market access, because they are actually quite good at defending their own market for the benefit of their members against external threats. Like we have become. When all is said and done, they recognise the risk, but consider the risk to the single market in letting the UK have its cake and eat it to be much more serious.
 
Chris in London said:
Actually, I never said a FTA covering services was impossible. That is not what I think and not what I said. What I said was “Any FTA that involves zero tariffs and quotas will be no more than we have now, but will exclude services.” You asked why it must exclude services, and I replied “most favoured nation clauses in most EU trade agreements means if they allow the UK access to their services they would need to replicate that for their other trading partners.” The point about MFN clauses developed from there, but it is obvious from what I said that the problem is not that it is impossible to include agreements about services in a wider FTA, but that IF they did there would be adverse consequences.
Click to expand...

But that conclusion seems dubious, or there could be no services agreement with the Ukraine. Which was my point. You keep saying that EU's MFN rules make it impossible without the EU agreeing to same for other countries, and yet here we have Ukraine with a services agreement, which clearly has been possible without the EU compromising agreements with Canada, Japan etc.

And you've moved the goalposts in now suggesting that yes it would be possible but we'd have to agree to certain stuff which we may not (or may) agree to.

Anyway, enough of this. You raise some interesting points. Let's watch how it pans out. I am not expecting to have to move out of the family estate or sell any of my 3 BMW's any time soon. (Joke, BTW).
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
But that conclusion seems dubious, or there could be no services agreement with the Ukraine. Which was my point. You keep saying that EU's MFN rules make it impossible without the EU agreeing to same for other countries, and yet here we have Ukraine with a services agreement, which clearly has been possible without the EU compromising agreements with Canada, Japan etc.

And you've moved the goalposts in now suggesting that yes it would be possible but we'd have to agree to certain stuff which we may not (or may) agree to.
Click to expand...

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. You have simply misunderstood what I said. Do try to understand something before you accuse other people of shifting their ground. It makes people think you aren't worth bothering with after all.

The EU has MFN clauses in the trade agreements it has with Japan and Canada. Those MFN clauses were not triggered by the EU/Ukraine agreement because the EU agreement with Ukraine came into force on 1 January 2016. It pre-dates CETA and the EU-Japan deal, so the MFN clauses in those agreements weren't triggered by the Ukraine deal. They will only be triggered by deals that post date those deals. So, if the EU-UK trade deal of (fingers crossed) December 2020 does contain service provisions, the EU will be contractually obliged to offer the same terms to Japan and Canada that it has just agreed with the UK. Because the UK's deal - unlike Ukraine's - will post date CETA and the Japan deal, and that's when the MFN clauses are triggered.
Do you follow?
​
The South Korea deal was in force when the Ukraine deal was done, I grant you, and does contain a MFN clause but the South Korea deal also contains an exception that covers passporting rights.

(It's almost as if the EU knew what it was doing.)

If you want to believe that the EU will offer us a deal that is as good a deal as we currently have on the movement between the UK and the EU27 of goods, capital and services but without FOM, be my guest. (let me guess, the German car makers will insist on it.) But if you accept what in my view is the blindingly obvious reality that it won't, the logical consequence is that our GDP will fall. Which is the point I was making when you asked why the EU-UK deal won't include services.
 
Chris in London said:
I haven't moved the goalposts at all. You have simply misunderstood what I said. Do try to understand something before you accuse other people of shifting their ground. It makes people think you aren't worth bothering with after all.
Click to expand...

And a whiff of a pissy attitude there has the same effect. I'm out. Have a great day.
 
Chris in London said:
Actually, I never said a FTA covering services was impossible. That is not what I think and not what I said. What I said was “Any FTA that involves zero tariffs and quotas will be no more than we have now, but will exclude services.” You asked why it must exclude services, and I replied “most favoured nation clauses in most EU trade agreements means if they allow the UK access to their services they would need to replicate that for their other trading partners.” The point about MFN clauses developed from there, but it is obvious from what I said that the problem is not that it is impossible to include agreements about services in a wider FTA, but that IF they did there would be adverse consequences. That presupposes that it is possible, albeit in my view so unlikely that it ought to be completely discounted as a serious possibility.

As to that:

1. AFAIK there aren’t any major FTAs - eg NAFTA or CTEC that cover provision of services in any meaningful way. That tells its own story.
2. I have explained already that MFN clauses in existing EU treaties mean that if we do have an agreement that covers services, the EU will have to offer the same terms to other trading partners. That does not suggest that it is impossible for a FTA to cover services, quite the contrary. What it does is consider what the consequences are of that, and raise the question whether the EU will be willing to cover services in a FTA for that reason.
3 The Ukraine does have an agreement that covers services but (a) it had to so that the EU could provide services to the Ukraine, which it does in spades, and (b) the quid pro quo is that Ukraine is subject to the ECJ jurisdiction and to EU regulations. The UK simply isn’t going to agree to those terms.
4 Switzerland too has an agreement that covers services, but again, that is a market that the EU was keen to break into, and as you can see the quid pro quo’s are that Switzerland accepts FOM and a budgetary contribution to the EU.

I think it is inevitable for these and many other reasons that any FTA will either completely disregard services, or will make very limited provision in terms of services. My view is is that it will completely disregard them.

I agree we will probably have a deal by December. It will leave us worse off than we were before, but will be trumpeted as a triumph and lots of people will swallow that. It certainly won’t deal with services. A longer transition is probably the best we can hope for, but as I’ve already said to a large extent that’s shutting the stable door long after the horse - well, a trillion horses TBH - has bolted.

The threat to the EU if it allows us to retain in effect three of the four freedoms and jettison FOM is existential. If the uk can have an a la carte deal why can’t France? Or Germany? Quite apart from the fact that the four freedoms are inextricably intertwined, just as they are in a real market, it would be political suicide for the EU to reward the UK for leaving. Trust me, the EU saw Singapore on Thames coming a long time ago, that’s why they’re making noises about level playing fields. If we start to implement Singapore on Thames by eroding workers rights and quality standards they will reduce our market access, because they are actually quite good at defending their own market for the benefit of their members against external threats. Like we have become. When all is said and done, they recognise the risk, but consider the risk to the single market in letting the UK have its cake and eat it to be much more serious.
Click to expand...
I'm backing our financial services weasels to continue to outperform their financial services weasels. We will always undercut EU tax regimes now the Tories are in charge for the forseeable. Manufacturing decline in the UK is a small price to pay in the eyes of ERG .
 
Financial Services will be safe for now whatever the outcome. All EU client data is now in EU hosted cloud data centers. Front office work relocated to the EU. Back office specialisms (where the money is made) will be done from the UK.
I worked on two similar transfers in late 2016-17.
I say safe for now because it will ALL be AI driven within 20 years and the only thing stopping it being done on the moon by then is data latency.
 
George Hannah said:
I'm backing our financial services weasels to continue to outperform their financial services weasels. We will always undercut EU tax regimes now the Tories are in charge for the forseeable. Manufacturing decline in the UK is a small price to pay in the eyes of ERG .
Click to expand...

Good for you, George.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top