|
Post by helsinkiyellow on Nov 16, 2017 20:31:09 GMT
The delays in the SK-USA deal arose out of an unfavourable Democrat congress, as Wikipedia has probably also reliably informed you. The point remains that in principle the SK-USA deal was negotiated and signed in 2 years. If your point about ASEAN is correct, then the agreement was signed within 2 years and implemented in another 2. Also, that's an economic bloc / single nation deal, not a simple nation / nation trade deal. Much like our current dealing with the EU. Is 4 years too long? I don't think so in the grand scheme of things. Re your comment in bold - You've attached a really strong opinion there to an unbelievably vague statement. 'Swiftly'. What does that mean? I assume you've never negotiated an international free-trade agreement so who exactly are you to label anyone delusional for believing we can get deals done in 2-5 years with major economies? It's naive and/or delusional to believe that a fair and comprehensive trade agreement with a major world economy cannot be done swiftly. See, I can do it too. Vacuous statement. Difference is, my vacuous statement has a great deal of precedent behind it. Yours does not. For the UK to get a trade deal that is actually in effect within 5 years with another global Top 10 economy, they are going to have to substantially outperform the international norm for such agreements. They will need to learn the ropes first. The UK hasn't negotiated a trade deal for 40+ years! As the Brexit negotiations show, the devil is in the detail - there isn't a simple off-the-shelf template to use.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 16, 2017 21:57:52 GMT
The problem is the banal comments were based on some banal threats from the Remain side about the "knife edge" the economy was on if we voted out (something anyone with a critical mind could see was highly unlikely to happen). AKA Project Fear. It was all utterly unedifying piffle where I don't think anyone can remember who said what first, and no one should look fondly on the contents of that campaign. I was being deliberately even-handed. The banal comments I used as examples were from both sides. Banality was most certainly not exclusive to one side or the other. And the banality continues. This whole thread is an example of 'so what?' posting. (And, as it happens, inaccurate. The article does not refer to 32 million unemployed, as KL Yellow spotted). It's why I've taken a step back from it all. Whatever side anyone sits on, they ain't moving from it. Debate is moot at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Nov 17, 2017 8:47:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Nov 17, 2017 12:47:06 GMT
Difference is, my vacuous statement has a great deal of precedent behind it. Yours does not. For the UK to get a trade deal that is actually in effect within 5 years with another global Top 10 economy, they are going to have to substantially outperform the international norm for such agreements. They will need to learn the ropes first. The UK hasn't negotiated a trade deal for 40+ years! As the Brexit negotiations show, the devil is in the detail - there isn't a simple off-the-shelf template to use. And of course we're not just negotiating one at a time. We have to get simultaneous agreements with all our major trading partners at the same time. All of the other parties knowing we are up against a wall. And likely the requirements of different agreements having effects on others - ie almost certainly as part of a US trade agreement we would have to accept lower food standards (or chlorinated chicken) - which then wouldn't be allowed in trade with the EU - will add complications in negotiations, regulations and ongoing trade.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Nov 17, 2017 15:33:43 GMT
They will need to learn the ropes first. The UK hasn't negotiated a trade deal for 40+ years! As the Brexit negotiations show, the devil is in the detail - there isn't a simple off-the-shelf template to use. And of course we're not just negotiating one at a time. We have to get simultaneous agreements with all our major trading partners at the same time. All of the other parties knowing we are up against a wall. And likely the requirements of different agreements having effects on others - ie almost certainly as part of a US trade agreement we would have to accept lower food standards (or chlorinated chicken) - which then wouldn't be allowed in trade with the EU - will add complications in negotiations, regulations and ongoing trade. Very true. Of course, the trade deal we should be in by far the best position to pull off quickly is one with the EU. We already have complete regulatory alignment and there are plenty of templates available. So the technical and legal complexity is way below that of a new deal with China/India/US. It's just the one that's going to be the most challenging politically (particularly on the European side)
|
|