DAVID Davis, after his meeting with Michel Barnier, insists the UK – actually the UK Government at No 10 – knows what it wants from Brexit.
He regurgitates the line “as comprehensive and frictionless trade in goods as possible” together with free trade with the rest of the world. Yet, tiny Belgium from within the EU exports more to India than the UK!
What does “as comprehensive and frictionless as possible actually mean”? The phrase is constantly bandied about. It is just as meaningless as Jeremy Corbyn’s “Brexit for jobs”!
David Davis’s phrase lacks detail. How comprehensive? Which goods should be frictionless in transit? Where will there be friction? Obviously frictionless trade is what we have at present within the customs union and single market.
Michel Barnier is clear. He has not been made aware of any details from the UK side as to what it wants. And being outside the single market will raise obstacles to trade. The four freedoms are red lines for the EU and cannot be open for negotiation.
Angela Merkel recently raised laughter at the scenario where Theresa May is reminded by Merkel that the UK needs to outline what it actually wants, since the UK Government has activated Article 50 and is taking steps to give up its bespoke membership of the EU, with opt-outs and rebate, and leave the customs union and internal market.
Now No 10 has to start to commit details to paper. There is no hiding behind vague and meaningless mantras any more, or stupid phrases like a “red-white-and-blue Brexit”.
David Davis and the UK Cabinet do not seem capable of formulating specifics beyond the top line! The Cabinet is divided; their party is divided and at war with the civil service. Outwardly, the Westminster government is becoming unstable and incoherent. Which group is next for a tirade of insults from the nasty party?
The EU and the 27 will of course be the final arbiters in any proposals put forward by No 10, if they ever surface from within the increasingly fractious and squabbling Cabinet. Therein lies the problem!
Brussels must indeed be running out of patience. And the clock is ticking.
John Edgar
Stewarton
OUR Prime Minister is keen for an independent trade policy but trade deals are never decided by one party alone. The BBC says the EU already has 68 free trade deals with other countries as well as its customs union. Seamless buying and selling and friction-free trade already exists.
I don’t know if the BBC is accurate, not being an expert in trade deal vocabulary. When I tried to check the facts I was impressed and a bit overwhelmed by the online information supplied by the EU: a list of all trade agreements in place, partly in place, pending, being updated or being negotiated.
I’ve also discovered what Mercosur, the GCC, CARIFORUM and SADC are. It seems every other part of the world is grouping together in order to make trade deals. Why would they do that? Could it possibly be they can get a better deal by banding together?
The EU site can tell me if it’s free trade, an economic partnership, an Interim or Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or just an association with a strong trade component. For example, The Ukraine has a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and an Association Agreement (possibly connected to the European Atomic Energy Community) while Zambia (part of ESA) has an Economic Partnership Agreement, signed on August 2009, not provisionally applied yet.
I know some people are worried about the lack of information from our government about how talks are progressing.
Do not fear. Once we are no longer a member, we will be able to follow the trade negotiation on this EU website!
Sheena Guz
Dundee
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel