A free trade deal between the European Union and Australia has unravelled despite early optimism, with Canberra saying Monday it could take years until negotiations resume.

A free trade deal between the European Union and Australia has unravelled despite early optimism, with Canberra saying Monday it could take years until negotiations resume

  • @[email protected]OPEnglish
    6•11 months ago

    Which one? NFU or Lawsociety? Or both?

    Yeah, like I said, no real benefit to Britain, other than to show that the gov’t is capable to sign deals, thin as they are, to score some political points at home.

    • Bernie EcclestonedEnglish
      -4•11 months ago

      The NFU is an insurance company and lobbyist. The Law Society is just that, a professional association. Governed by royal charter, it has a duty to public interest. The NFU does not. It’s a lobby group for fat landowners.

      So, no real benefit, other than to high margin, high skill, professional services exports?

      • @[email protected]OPEnglish
        7•11 months ago

        They’re both lobby groups, don’t kid yourself.

        So, the benefits are the ones that Britain gave up with 27 countries in order to sign it with one on the other side of the world?

        If you throw away £1000 and then find £1, it’s that a benefit? I don’t see it that way.

        • Bernie EcclestonedEnglish
          -3•11 months ago

          I’m not kidding myself, they are very different businesses. The agribusiness lobby is a lot more harmful to the environment than the Law Society is. There are just more common law countries outside the EU for legal exports. That’s a fact, and an opportunity.

          And no, we exited the political union, no reason that economic ties can’t be improved now the brexit ultras are soon to be gone.

          Over 90% of UK companies didn’t export to the EU anyway while we were in it.

          Plus:

          https://sh.itjust.works/post/8190702

          • @[email protected]OPEnglish
            4•11 months ago

            They are very different businesses, I agree, but don’t believe for a second that Law Society isn’t a lobby group.

            What was stopping UK businesses from selling to companies outside the EU27 before? Were UK law professionals prevented from selling services to Australia before this deal? How?

            I’m certain that the economic ties between the EU and the UK can be improved. I think it’s called “dynamic alignment” and as soon as the UK signs up to it a lot of barriers to trade will go away.

            You’re also correct that the vast majority of UK companies didn’t export to the EU. It’s a bit weird phrasing it like that though, when over 40% of the UKs export goes there. And like you point out in the link you provided, supply chains are sensitive to disruption, which is why they’re worried about the rules of origin.

            • Bernie EcclestonedEnglish
              1•11 months ago

              I voted to get out of the CAP. Legal lobbying isn’t really of concern to me. Especially as the two legal systems are so different. Civil vs Common law.

              The UK was unable to negotiate a trade deal with Australia while in the EU. Being part of the EU means sacrificing sovereignty in those matters. The EU trade deals are much more focused on goods than services. The UK is 80% services, so it’s a benefit to be able to negotiate trade deals that suit the UK.

              • @[email protected]OPEnglish
                2•11 months ago

                The UK was unable to negotiate a trade deal with Australia while in the EU. Being part of the EU means sacrificing sovereignty in those matters. The EU trade deals are much more focused on goods than services. The UK is 80% services so it’s a benefit to be able to negotiate trade deals that suit the UK.

                That’s true. Trade deals that the EU signs have to benefit everybody or they won’t get approved by the members. That means that every single trade deal that the EU signed with the UK as a member had the UKs approval. But now that the UK can sign their own, they signed on that politicians agree “isn’t very good” (Eustice) or “one sided” (Sunak) and that UK experts are at best lukewarm about, so how does that benefit Britain?

                What is it that the UK can do in Australia now, with this new trade deal, that was impossible before 2021?

                On the other hand, the Australians seem happy, so at least there’s that.

                • Bernie EcclestonedEnglish
                  1•11 months ago

                  Well it’s better than a failed trade deal isn’t it? Like the EU and Australia one…

                  All the UK trade deals have gone further on digital and services than the EU ones did. They are either better suited to the UK economy or are being agreed in preparation for CPTPP accession.

                  As for the deal:

                  It will remove most tariffs on trade between the UK and Australia when it comes into force. The UK market for some agricultural goods will be opened to Australia more gradually.

                  Other provisions cover trade in services, digital trade, public procurement and intellectual property.

                  UK citizens aged under 35 will be able to travel and work in Australia more easily.

                  There are provisions covering technical barriers to trade, and sanitary & phytosanitary (SPS) measures relating to food safety and animal and plant health.

                  There are chapters on small business, the environment, and animal welfare and antimicrobial resistance.

                  https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/

                  • @[email protected]OPEnglish
                    3•11 months ago

                    Well it’s better than a failed trade deal isn’t it? Like the EU and Australia one… Is it? If you can’t agree on something that both think is beneficial why would you want a deal? Unless it’s to show that you’re a big boy now and can sign your own trade deals? Didn’t brexiteers use to say “No deal is better than a bad deal” or something like that?

                    All the UK trade deals have gone further on digital and services than the EU ones did. They are either better suited to the UK economy or are being agreed in preparation for CPTPP accession. So what is it that the UK can do with “digital and services” now that the agreement was signed, that was impossible before? Is the deal really “better suited for the UK” when it’s described as “not very good” and “one sided”? I think you’re right that it was signed for political, rather than economic reasons.

                    All the things you bring up as benefits of the UK/Australia deal are things that the UK had as members of the EU. So, giving up that for a market that accounts for over 40% of your exports in order to be able to sign it with a market that accounts for around 2.5% isn’t really a smart move, is it?