Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • welcome.

  • Both again.

  • Welcome back.

  • All those home Georgie that were in the Institute for Government.

  • But thank you for having us here.

  • And nice to see you, Sam.

  • And we've now got both the documents.

  • Um, they look miles apart, blue like an ocean apart, so they look yards apart.

  • What do you think of the chances of those two documents being merged into an agreement somehow?

  • So I think there are obviously some very clear issues where the U.

  • K.

  • And you're just on completely different pages and we know what they are.

  • We've discussed them in the past on this podcast even.

  • But issues to do with level playing field obligations there are when it comes to environment and labor protections, what rules there are governing our state, the U.

  • K State aid regime.

  • There's also issues around the role of the European Court of Justice and then also whether there should be multiple agreement.

  • So it should all be package is one big agreement.

  • But the thing that I think people should be aware off is that once you get past all of those massive issues, which is probably quite difficult to do when it comes to the nature of the future.

  • U K you trading relationship You in the UK largely on the same page.

  • You can point to a few specific issues where they differ slightly, but they know what they want and what it could look like.

  • It's just a case of how do we get there?

  • Yeah, particularly because I think on thee you side.

  • It's the same process I eat the commission negotiating on behalf of member states.

  • But actually, depending on the kind of agreement it might need to be signed off by national and regional parliaments, let alone the 27 you governments on the European Parliament, which is a new beast, much more fractured on DSO, there are many more new voices on many more you people to please on.

  • That could be a challenge as well, because it's not just about negotiating.

  • Reaching agreement is about passing that green.

  • What do you think?

  • The biggest problems here, What's what's good?

  • Is there a chance that we do as is threatened in the front pages of all of this walk away in June?

  • Is it just slow progress by June that could bring us bring us down?

  • I mean that June deadline doesn't It's not coming out of nowhere.

  • In the political declaration, they did say that that would be a high level conference at that point to take stock of the negotiations.

  • Of course, I think when that deadline was mentioned, that was at the time when everyone thought that UK would be leaving the on the 29th of March 2019.

  • So, you know, I think that anyone could walk away from this negotiation that you could walk away as well.

  • Is that a threat?

  • Yes, but of course we could find ourselves in a situation where, if that looks really likely, all of a sudden businesses start to react.

  • Stopped panic citizens as well.

  • So it will really be a question and calculating what all the risks and what would that impact be?

  • But at the moment, yes, I think it does make sense to say you would walk away.

  • It's part of the leverage on the negotiation.

  • You're less impressed.

  • It's just part of the theater.

  • And in a way I'm less impressed because I feel that we just bean through all of this process before where we go through all of the sort of theatrics, all of the drama, all of the chest beating.

  • And then we know that when the deadline actually approaches, people go.

  • Oh, actually that.

  • See if we can work something out and that's what I fear will happen this time in in a way, that's what they use counting on.

  • And, of course, that's a calculated risk.

  • The UK and proper Minister Johnson could actually decide this time around.

  • He means it when he says he'll walk away.

  • He's happy not having a deal, But my feeling is that, yes, we're gonna have a few months of very loud noise.

  • But the U in the UK, shouting past each other but wait don't really know what the compromise is or could be until later on.

  • In the year when the the looming cliff edge of leaving without a trade agreement on both sides have known for a while, I think that the U.

  • K's intention is not to extend that period of talks beyond the end of the That's already a very short time frame.

  • I think from the ease perspective, I think it does UK really want to shorten that time frame.

  • If you walked away in June and wasted the summer and then tried to come back.

  • That's time.

  • We can absolutely do that.

  • If you think about even last year.

  • We think about all the time we wasted your in the Article 50 period where we went, where we stormed off to have a general lecture, Nor or we decided on a leadership election in one of the two parties or in both.

  • You can waste a lot of time and you can walk away, but it doesn't mean even if we do walk away in June, it doesn't necessarily say to me that there's never going to be an agreement.

  • We could very well return to the table in September when you look at the gap between the two sides on the idea of the level playing field.

  • Can you imagine if the you didn't absolutely insist on certain you badging of institutions who are betrayed or you laws?

  • If we just said we stay where we are on, we don't regress.

  • Is that where the bones of a new agreement lies?

  • I mean, I think very quickly on this, the mandate talks about high correspond correspondent high standards, so that's not the same standards, although I think in certain areas like stated, they will be much more robust.

  • And I think some members, it's us very, very worried about the UK over time undercutting you on that level, playing field, no longer being level and that creating all sorts of problems.

  • The question is, can I just ask you just on that?

  • The more worried about a conservative government pumping money into the economy or just a matter of interest?

  • Well, I I wonder if it's not sort of because over time it's made that that term over time has come into this new mandate frequently.

  • I mean, it's there three or four times.

  • I think they are very much thinking about divergence over time.

  • And if you two decades on, absolutely because you know one government to the next could change where they want to invest money, what industries they want to prioritize and where they see prosperity on.

  • Of course, that then does impact whatever trading relations it would have.

  • You see it, I think I think, yes, it's not just this government, but very much any other future government, but I think that you can see a way through on this and it will require the UK backing down on certain things and also the you backing down and said If we look at environment in labor, the UK saying where were happening to commit to uphold international obligations that we already have, say, our obligation to the Paris agreement or multiple other multi natural environment agreements on We also happy to make a vague commitment, not rollback on existing levels of protection so as to get a competitive advantage over you.

  • But we don't want this to be enforceable.

  • We don't want it to be based on the U rules and the like, but and then you say, Well, we wanted Thio.

  • Have you put rules as a point of reference?

  • And we want to avoid divergence over time, and we want to go to punish you if you do diverge.

  • But can we find a compromise here?

  • I think so, because the UK is going to have to sign up to enforcement on the possibility of concessions being withdrawn so so called punishment if it does a trade agreement with the U.

  • S.

  • Because the US makes the same requests here.

  • So if there is just a chance that weaken re Brad rebrand this slightly.

  • So See, the UK needs to say they've got something but say Look, we're in a situation where on day one we've got the same rules on if we diverge over time, to the point where there is an issue in which the U.

  • K or the E U is out competing, the other on because they deregulated, there's a sliding scale.

  • The punishment, then the other party can put in place tariffs on what it comes down to is a choice between accepting tariffs now and say, Well, we don't want a free trade agreement or saying when they will agree this free trade agreement.

  • But we accept that if there is a problem on this front in the future, then terrorists might come back into play.

  • It's hard to imagine, isn't it, Georgie that there isn't actually a template for that already in the back room of it's already in their mandate.

  • So this is already in.

  • This proposal in terms of enforcement is already in the U negotiating mandate.

  • I think lots of people in the UK when they hear the commission saying what we want to thio commit not to roll back from existing levels of protection.

  • You know, they then go in their mind, Okay, But then they'll try and punishes.

  • What will they do?

  • The commission will be here telling people what to do.

  • Know the punishment.

  • If the if the UK does diverge to the point of market distortion is that you might put in place and tariffs, that's that's it.

  • There might be financial penalties attached that hasn't been negotiated, but that's it.

  • We're not talking about anything more than that.

  • The big problem.

  • I think, though, where the U is going to have to budget on state eight, where what they're asking is much more intrusive.

  • They're saying the UK should apply you state aid rules in the UK into the future indefinitely.

  • If they change, even if they change, they should be enforced by UK based bodies.

  • But that body should work with the commission to make sure it's compatible use doing.

  • And then if there's a dispute on issues of EU law, which state aid would be?

  • That dispute panel would refer to the European Court of Justice his opinion and take that into account when arbitrating over the dispute But again, what we're actually coming down to is if the UK diverges a lot that you might put in place Harris, I just think.

  • But with the initial block, you can't imagine Georgina accepting that those sorts of mechanisms.

  • I mean, at the moment, that doesn't seem very likely, but I do think it's worth emphasizing this.

  • The UK has left the European Union.

  • The U has been under no illusion that that meant that the UK wanted to do things differently.

  • The problem with the use, they don't know what the UK wants to do differently, and they're trying to plan accordingly.

  • And they don't really want to be in a situation where you're having punitive action and you're reacting to divergence.

  • They they're trying to be in a position where you prevent divert.

  • And the reason for that is because divergence disrupts trade flows and any disruption to tape trade flows means potentially more costs for producers and more cost For consumers, it means disruption of supply chains and all of that very costly, so they're thinking about it in sort of a much more long term way.

  • But the problem is what they're proposing at the moment is never going to fly here, but I suspect that, you know, in Brussels behind closed doors, they are exploring different options.

  • I feel probably write a piece about this, but I feel I could design something that if I could convince the prime minister to accept that he could sell right.

  • There's a huge amount of ifs in that, and I'm never going to be in a position to do that.

  • But you're a weirdo.

  • Dominic Cummings.

  • New Impact.

  • Well, I didn't read super forecasting or listen to an order but book book last week, so maybe I'm absolutely not no interest for reading it.

  • The British government is saying that it's the you who have over interpreted the political declaration that extra documents signed up to alongside the withdrawal agreement.

  • On that, they've added lots of paragraphs and extra definitions, which means that they're stretching the definition of level playing field and what we actually signed up to matches what we have put in this new negotiating document, whose rights I really don't have time for this argument, because just because throughout this entire process, the EU has said, we are happy to negotiate a free trade agreement with you that looks like the one we have with Canada.

  • However, because your big and nearby we will ask more of you in these areas.

  • That's been a constant throughout.

  • So to say this is a surprise or they moved the goal post.

  • That just can't be true.

  • We've always known this is what the you means by.

  • It is absolutely fine that the UK disagrees with their exact interpretation of that and how they want to implement it on the ground.

  • But it is not new Onda political declaration whose who's moved furthest from that?

  • There seems to be a cross channel insults flying.

  • The political declaration was always going to be ambitious.

  • It was going to set this idea of what an ideal future UK your relationship would look like.

  • It's no, it was never legally binding on dhe.

  • I think the you on the UK actually throughout the negotiations were saying that that negotiations still has to happen right?

  • If this is, you know, this is our ambition, but this is no where you know this is not necessarily where we will end up again.

  • I think a Sam said earlier that a lot of what's in these two Mondays?

  • Actually, I was in the political declaration, so it's not completely new.

  • Of course, it won't be exactly the political declaration.

  • In the same way that the final agreement won't be exactly what these mandates are about blind.

  • The question is, is what does that landing zone look like on?

  • Do we have enough time to reach that both parties are setting out there?

  • The EU's taken a hyper maximalist approach on certain areas of the political declaration on the UK has chosen to interpret it slightly differently because it believes it's in its interest to interpret it that way.

  • And that's fine.

  • This is the beginning of the negotiation.

  • This is what the UK wants.

  • This is what you want is pretty much they don't agree on everything pretty much the sorts of levels of the documents you'd normally expect to the beginning of a major trade negotiation that you've seen a few of them both.

  • So you say, well, actually used to the negotiated mandated that you used to be secret.

  • So it used to be that you only saw them if they leaked.

  • But now they now, after they've learned some lessons of their failed negotiation with the U.

  • S.

  • They have started publishing them also.

  • We've seen them in the past, but usually we got them through.

  • We had to get hold of them through nefarious means.

  • So it's quite nice that is being published.

  • I mean, traditionally what happens is they will, you know, both sides will draft a mandate.

  • They'll exchange it.

  • They'll have time to look at it, not clear that that happened, whether both sides just store it once it had been published online.

  • But of course, I think both sides of knowledge that this is what they starting point.

  • You'd expect them to be miles apart.

  • You'd expect them to be having, you know, holding very tough lines.

  • But it's where will they end up on?

  • I suspect that on both sides there are lots of discussions right now about red lines where they can't move how far they're willing to move on, what they would be ready to push back slightly do want to emphasize this miles apart on certain specific issue, because again, a zay said at the beginning of our discussion, if you actually go through this page by page and he probably counted the number of pages where the UK knee you were roughly in the same place.

  • It probably outnumber it easily outnumber the areas where there's disagreement.

  • So a lot of what we're looking at here gives me hope.

  • Then, of course, there could be hope there'll be a trade agreement.

  • But then, of course, the issues where there are disagreement on small ones on the structure of the talks back.

  • If you go all the way back to the original Brexit divorce agreement, Britain wanted a certain type of structure.

  • The European Union wanted another structure.

  • It's fair to say, isn't it that we ended up 100% on the European Union template?

  • This time again, we've got a difference in how these should be structured.

  • Britain would like lots of separate agreements on dhe.

  • They would like a no overarching agreement in which they're all interrelated.

  • We worry that they will.

  • That means they'll try and pressurize us on one to affect another.

  • Who's gonna win that, or is it already gave me?

  • Oh, it really depends.

  • I think you know, if we didn't have this sort of cut off date by the end of the year, and we had years and years of negotiations.

  • I think you would be pushing very, very hold about having one comprehensive agreement because they didn't really like the agreement's just just to terrify.

  • So that incorporates traders.

  • One pill last and Security is another, then transporters something else, all sort of packaged in one in one deal, but a great delivery things kind of.

  • But I think there's a recognition that if the cut off date is the end of the year, in fact, Funda let a bundle a Who's the commission president when she was in London earlier this year, said, We were not gonna be able to do everything we're going to have to prioritize on.

  • And the question is, is what does that basic deal look like?

  • And if it is a basic deal, I doesn't cover everything.

  • Does that necessarily mean that those things that haven't been covered will be separate agreements?

  • Or is it something that with, you know, piling on top, but at a later stage?

  • So, Mike Mike, my feeling on this is that ultimately this, however it's negotiated, even if it's negotiated a separate packages.

  • So we negotiate trade over here, Justice and home affairs here, security defense here.

  • In that separate, you will ultimately try and package it underneath one horizontal agreement where the government structures it.

  • So that's where you embed political dialogues.

  • You also have the also have dispute.

  • You also have mechanisms to allow for continued negotiation.

  • And the reason I say this is what they're trying to avoid is the exact issue they have with Switzerland, which is whereby they have lots of different agreements with different enforcement mechanisms than it gets very unwieldy, and it creates lots of problems.

  • And right now they're trying to negotiate with Switzerland on institutional framework agreement that sits over all of this.

  • So it doesn't seem to me to be likely.

  • They use going to immediately try and recreate that system they hate with the UK.

  • But the UK, as you, as you said in your question, is obviously quite cautious of having this overarching structure because they worry that say, we misbehave on trade over here, the UK, the you might threaten us on, say, access to databases to do justice and home affairs.

  • Over here, they're worried about the intelligence, which is exactly that You don't want to do so It's not an unfounded fear on actually already does with Switzerland.

  • I mean, if you look back a couple of years ago, sits in and held a referendum on trying Thio, omit the number of your workers.

  • I think Dick Lickers, Croatia was looking to join Schengen at the time on DDE that sort of erupted.

  • It was a big debate on the you then slowed down discussions with Switzerland on an integration in the internal energy market, which was just something completely separate.

  • But they created a direct link and that was political so that you can use disagreements in certain areas to slow down progress in other areas, such as a way of putting pressure on the other side to budge on coming back to the negotiations of the UK is having with the you.

  • Now on issues such as data and financial service is where it's not a negotiation between the U.

  • K in the U in that both parties and the U in particular said, Well, we'll deal with these issues unilaterally will decide whether to grant you equivalents of financial service is or adequacy for data by ourselves.

  • We won't negotiate.

  • It will just decide.

  • Technically speaking, that should be completely unrelated to the trading agreement Discussions.

  • There should be no overlap because you could decide that irrespective of what happens with the free trade agreement technically speaking politically, of course, they're going to be linked if we have a trade agreement at the end of the year between you and the U.

  • K.

  • If you fully expect that the UK we also have a date adequacy ruling in its favor and also they'll be equivalents of financial service is if we don't have a trade agreement at the end of the year.

  • No technical reason why we couldn't have the other two, but political.

  • No chance.

  • Politically, it just seems quite unlikely oil be limited, although they're putting place a time limits in the light to try and keep pressure.

  • Absolutely.

  • I mean, those unilateral measures will be dependent on what comes out of these negotiations right now on.

  • I suspect that you would be more willing for the natural measures to last longer, for example, and have less conditionality attached if they have reached some for an agreement to cover goods, customs, Taras governments and fish to the meat of the issue Fish.

  • How, um how much do you think really changes in terms of who's fishing for what in our waters.

  • Putting the rhetoric of the British government position Tau one side For now.

  • If we look ahead, if there is a successful agreement, what do you think?

  • Would you?

  • So I think fish is a really contentious issue on actually the language that is in this Monday compared to the draft Monday that was published, the beginning of the month is a lot tougher thing.

  • Yes, yes, Theo used the language on fish is a lot tougher, and that's because some member states are really worried.

  • And they're thinking, Well, if we are going to compromise at some point, we should start at a point where it's absolutely up holding the existing arrangement.

  • We will accept nothing else, potentially knowing that actually, it will be a compromised further down the line.

  • But it is.

  • It is something that France is worried about.

  • And I think the you minister, Emily don't China has been on record saying that this was an absolute deal breaker, but there are other members.

  • I think this is something that you will want some clarity on a movement on earlier in the negotiations.

  • Absolutely.

  • And they will bond.

  • This is something.

  • I think they're probably going to stop talking about it in a couple of weeks.

  • But is that deadline set in stone?

  • I don't know.

  • I think it's not like extending Article 50 negotiations or extending the transition period.

  • Where that headline is set in Stone has to be made in the summer.

  • We'll see.

  • But But I suspect that this is the other important thing.

  • It's not just France that cares about this fisheries agreement.

  • There are other member states as well, but they're lining up quite conveniently behind France.

  • Unless in France the service is sick.

  • Thio slightly for gotten in various sectors of the service industry, they pretty much forgotten in there.

  • They're not forgotten, but they are treated as if we're talking about free trade agreement, which is what we are and t elaborate on what I mean by that.

  • What you can do on service is in a free trade agreement is nothing like the status quo.

  • So you membership on service is the single market in service is very much exists, and it allows you to do things that you can't do if you don't have a trade agreement or even if you do have a trade agreement.

  • And that's how its approach to the future free trade agreement is being proposed.

  • Will cover service is it just won't offer much more than the status quo.

  • There's an interesting quirks in the two different mandates in that the UK knew you were largely aligned on this in terms of what they're talking about.

  • They know the format they know of.

  • Free trade agreement doesn't what it doesn't, but the you have said they want to exclude audiovisual service is from the discussion, which they always do in their trade agreements because of the French.

  • The UK said they want to include it.

  • So that is one area where even on the trade side, there is some time disagreement and the UK will just have to budge on that.

  • The you are moving and the difference between the you draft mandate on the one that was finally adopters, they did add a paragraph on financial service is an equivalence decisions making it very clear that these would be unilateral measures on mechanism, so it would be the you granting maze you get.

  • But it does say that they would need to be consultation with the UK and this is it.

  • So people, when they talk about this trade agreement they send it doesn't cover service, is it will cover.

  • Service is it will have long pages and pages of schedules.

  • Covering service is saying what you can do and what you can't do in a very narrow way.

  • Doesn't do much will do next.

  • Nothing on the regulatory side, which is where the barriers are.

  • But they will, for example, be a financial service is Chapter.

  • Most likely, what will it do?

  • It will commit both the U.

  • K in the U to create a dialogue between their regulators so as to iron out issues in the future.

  • Useful but nothing like passporting.

  • What exists that the people who are actually negotiating on our side on their side?

  • Yes, and people particularly rude about caliber on their performance in the House comes today.

  • How did the two sides measure up in terms of experience acumen?

  • I mean, I don't work for the government for the E.

  • What I would say is that the e.

  • R.

  • Formidable trade negotiators this is what they do really well.

  • They have a process that reflects years of fine tuning.

  • They have picks the people who had been working on Brexit issues in different apartments.

  • They brought them in.

  • They feel like they have the right people with the right experience on the right level of knowledge, not only about what happens in the U law but also get firm understanding of common law of W.

  • T O Law and also the politics of negotiations.

  • I think on the East Side they will be including many more people as well.

  • So we know that on the security side they will be involving their colleagues from the European External Action Service, which is this de facto you foreign ministry.

  • They'll be leading on that.

  • They'll also be close collaboration with the Department of Trade on We know that the head of the Department for Trade used to be the deputy chief negotiator during the Article 50 negotiations.

  • So there's a lot of linkages there.

  • I think on the UK side way, think roughly 40 to 50 people, I think on their task force on one thing that I was really struck by is actually when I was in Washington back in April, I met someone that who had recently left three U S.

  • Administration said, Oh, I've met some of your trade negotiators.

  • These are not the people.

  • He will be looking at the UK you negotiation.

  • But people who were looking at the UK US trade negotiation, they were saying they're very good on detail.

  • We're just not sure they have the experience of negotiating.

  • As they threw a curveball, we tried to see how they reacted.

  • They didn't know how to yet.

  • But that was back in April.

  • And, you know, I think the Civil seven session it can be incredibly agile.

  • So but the point of the point I would make here when it comes to these negotiations is the people we have doing it a fine because the issues aren't about technical things around.

  • Well, how big should this quote to be?

  • What should you know?

  • There's some issues on rules of origin which will have to deal with, but largely due to the big disagreements here, their political.

  • So they're on fish.

  • Do we're now access to our fishing waters or not in under which terms?

  • If the prime Minister tells them where we want it.

  • I want you to find a solution on this, and this is the broad range of what?

  • I won't miss it broadly.

  • What I wanted to do, they can pull something together.

  • We start with the Northern Island on the Northern Line and practical last year on, say, Court of Justice, on Environment and State Aid.

  • He's a political decisions, and so I have the full confidence that if the ministerial direction is there and they're told to find a solution within certain parameters that they could do so, it's no, it's not quite the same as a negotiating with the US when we really were not going to zero tariff tariff quota free, we're gonna have to go tariff line by tariff line on DDE.

  • It's a bit different.

  • I feel this negotiation is just driven by the politics.

  • So I think focusing on the actual civil servants who were tasked with delivering it is kind of missing the point.

  • Yeah, and I think the key well, the key for those civil servants is what you said is knowing how far they can go.

  • Having a clear understanding of the priorities the red lines on that place for fudging and compromise.

  • Maybe being a smaller Lena team without much reference to parliament or, I mean, this one of these mandates in front of you came from the Cabinet or one section of the Cabinet, or maybe even smaller than that, and the other one went around 27 countries does not give up on advantage.

  • Maybe like one your feet possibly.

  • And, you know, when you talk in capitals, they say to some degree that there's a little bit of relief that actually the government has a majority in Parliament because at least that process looks like it will be, uh, simply this time around.

  • But on the you side, it could be much more complicated.

  • And that's because the commission and the U governments have a process which I said it's very rigid.

  • They have constant feedback before and after every negotiating round foot contentious issues they will make its member states feel the commission is taking a two hard line position.

  • They will push back on that and likewise, if they think the commission's being soft, they'll push back on that as well.

  • But it's also about the European Parliament, the European Parliament has to sign this deal off much more fractured this time around.

  • Many more Emmy pees who want to be seen to be standing up for their constituencies and then depending on the kind of agreements, whether it covers areas of law that fall under, you know, member state law, not just you lost.

  • So that's things like, you know, transport, for example, there, you countries that legislate in certain areas and then the you will legislate as hole in other areas.

  • If that agreement covers areas of law that fall under the you on member states, then it possibly will need to be signed off by national and regional parliaments.

  • Now there is a way of provisioning the applying agreement, but it does mean many more.

  • You voice is added to the mix.

  • So for the you that balance it could be problematic in that it would make it less agile and less able to respond quickly.

  • But also it could be a point of leverage where it says, look really sorry.

  • Our position reflects hours and hours of negotiations.

  • We caught me on the UK side, so I think that was very good of you.

  • But on the UK side.

  • Do I think that if the prime minister signs often agreement with EU that he can?

  • Cell is at home.

  • Yes, has an 80 seat majority if he says he's happy with it.

  • Even if a few people are a bit annoyed, it's fine.

  • So I think that does help on this front in that from the use perspective under Theresa May's and she could she could say something and it didn't it didn't matter.

  • But now you know, if you do get the prime minister on board, it will probably happen.

  • We saw that with the withdrawal agreement last year.

  • Just finally, the U.

  • S trade representative is suspiciously over here.

  • Can't help thinking that on the same day that these talks start on Monday with the European Union, there's going to be a photo op somewhere, and the talks will simultaneously start with United States.

  • Will that have any impact?

  • Some brexiteers particularly were hoping that it might just put some pressure on the U.

  • Will it have any?

  • So I might have had to revise my opinion slightly on UK us in that I'd assumed that following the UK leaving the European Union that we'd make a big song and dance about the U.

  • S.

  • About it being a number one priority and for the reasons you said there were some brexiters think it gives us leverage over the you, which is debatable.

  • But at least you know an argument you can engage with, and then also because for many of them, it's what they wanted to do all along.

  • But then, if you actually look at what the government's doing, gives you cause to thought, you think when you look at while way if you strip out all of the talk about national security and the like, the government prioritized rolling out five G quickly in the UK over the median real, immediate relationship with the United States.

  • Boris Johnson's postponed his trip to Washington.

  • The U.

  • S negotiating mandate The negotiating mandate for the U.

  • K's agreement with the U.

  • S.

  • Or or objectives is mentally published last next week.

  • But that was by all accounts, could have probably being published before the general election has been sitting there for a while, So I actually think the UK is being much more cautious with regards to us than I expected and That doesn't mean I don't think there'll be a photo shot with Lighthizer when he's over here.

  • And that won't be put in contrast with the you and saying that we negotiating with both but a bit more measured than I was expecting.

  • I think there's recognition that this is also going to be a tough negotiation, right?

  • Three U.

  • S and the UK probably want different things, though there will be some things they agree on, but there'll be lots of other things that they don't agree on.

  • It won't be a straightforward negotiation.

  • You can you can reach something like commercial agreement, for example.

  • But if you're looking at a full, fully fledged free trade agreement, that's an entirely different ballgame on.

  • Also, I think the politics you mentioned, some of the decisions that the UK government has taken recently, which were order perhaps with with the positions by the U.

  • S administration but also to us, is about to enter a presidential election.

  • Is this really the time on dhe?

  • If if you are looking at a fully fledged free trade agreement that would need to pass through Congress, is it likely Congress would pass it in the midst of a presidential election, not giving Donald Trump another trade agreement.

  • They gave him one recently because he re negotiated NAFTA and Congress signed them off.

  • They're not going to give him a fully fledged free trade with the UK this year.

  • Well, I think we could see, though.

  • Is some Azul Gina reference some sort of smaller agreement?

  • So something for Trump to say.

  • Look, I did something with the UK something for I mean, we can envision the BBC or Channel four headline.

  • Now UK and US do trade agreement.

  • It doesn't really matter.

  • It's just a piece of paper saying, Well, we'd like to do this in future.

  • That's how it'll play out.

  • And that's how it will be received by the public so I could see that happening this year.

  • But a fully fledged free trade agreement A is gonna be better would be very difficult to do this year, even if he really, really wanted it.

  • And I'm actually looking at the British government and saying it doesn't seem to be your number one priority.

  • You both watch trade, have watched it for years.

  • Now it having bean, you competence, your home team is playing you excited, but it's quite file.

  • If it was a professional perspective, it gives, it means that we're both very, very busy.

  • So that's so That's interesting.

  • I think it's gonna be quite exciting to see what the U.

  • K's approach to trade more generally looks like over the coming years were sort of rewriting a trade strategy from scratch on my hope is that we do that in a sensible way to consider the way.

  • And we don't just run headfirst into whatever is we're into green with us or whoever else, without properly thinking about it.

  • And some of the action from government recently has actually reassured.

  • I also think that trade has been it's been a bubble for way too long on actually is quite a good thing that people are taking an interest in it.

  • The problem is that it's very complicated.

  • Negotiations don't always end up where we think they will be on.

  • Actually, there's a lot of technical detail in there, so it's great for us because it's the politics meets the technical on Dhe and then just following a negotiation really closely.

  • The question is, how do you communicate that in a simple way that does not cut corners.

  • But I think overall it's it's probably a very good thing, although, although I would add one caveat there, which is, which is sort of the guilty secret of people who work on trade is that normal trade agreements aren't actually that important for the economy.

  • So if you're talking about something really comprehensive and ingrained like the you, obviously it will be in in for 40 years.

  • Obviously leaving it has a cost on.

  • Obviously, if you do a trading room with the U.

  • S, it will have some benefits, but actually quite small.

  • If you talk to hit numbers, sort of u U K.

  • U s agreement is estimated to improve GDP relative to some future.

  • Can't factual by about North 0.3 point 4%?

  • It's not a big you know.

  • So so when when I look at the government and see how you're prioritizing the rollout of five G over that, I sort of the way kind of make sense.

  • But of course, of course, we don't let shit like this to tactics.

  • Otherwise no one would invite us to speak to you what you would invite us to speak to you on your podcast.

  • And it's not just about trade.

  • There were many security foreign policy corporation on what the UK decides to do domestically, which is different as well that I think it's an exciting you.

  • Thank you both for helping us through it, and I'm sure we'll have you back if you'll come before.

  • Thank you so much.

  • Thank you.

welcome.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it