Negotiating trade deals post-Brexit?

[Barbarara]

How is it supposed to work post-Brexit when the govt has to negotiate its own international trade deals, after demonstrating on the world stage that it doesn’t consider international agreements to be binding?

I think the "because it's us" reason is what they would say.

With great difficulty. EU officials have been negotiating on members behalf. Our Whitehall officials have a steep learning curve and a very insecure position, as you say.
Every time the question will be ' is this better than the EU deal?'
We can guess at the answer...

Yes British imperialist arrogance I’m afraid. You are quite right that we look extremely foolish at best

Deals UK has done so far are on

www.bbc.com/news/uk-47213842

Well short of the target of 40 so far

And nothing yet with our biggest and nearest market. Obviously.

And we have noooo idea what quality these 'deals' represent. In this regard we are an isolated, ill-informed 'victim' ripe for plucking.

Lets not forget our 'lead' is Liz Truss. The least capable person ever to sit on or near a Cabinet table (now that Grayling has gone obvs innit) and that is saying a great deal.

And nothing yet with our biggest and nearest market. Obviously

If no deal happens I don't think it will last long after both French and UK governments have seen the chaos in Calais and Dover.

I don't share your unfounded optimism Mystery. It would play politically into the hands of the Johnson crew who would want to evoke a war-related 'spirit'. Little England against the european foe, and he can have his Churchillian moment. Whilst 1,000s of innocent die, and the rest of us suffer.

These cunts are ruthless fuckers. Let's bear that in mind.

Quick trade deals will include relaxed visas which is not what the Brexit strong massive voted for but it is what will happen. Along with reduced safety standards, higher prices, reduced choice. Oh god I want to get out of this country!

@MysteryTripAgain doesn't know who Simon Coveney is so not sure they know much about international relations.

@MrPan

Look how quickly the MPs moved to introduce the new law about no deal. They can move when they need to and fits their purpose

I'm not so sure.

Because negotiations skills are transferable, and not limited to one sphere if any (all teams have subject experts behind the negotiations tam)

I do not think Britain is so uniformly crap in every negotiation that there is a dearth of experienced personnel. Especially as negotiable skills can be transferred in from the private sector (add a diplomat to the subject expert panel if needed)

"Look how quickly the MPs moved to introduce the new law about no deal. They can move when they need to and fits their purpose"

I wouldn't have any of those MPs on a negotiating team. Removing your only leverage? Poor move (from the pov of negotiating)

Removing your only leverage? Poor move (from the pov of negotiating)

I agree it makes it easy for EU to call all shots in any future negotiations.
Might explain why Johnson is not bothering. Point was that MPs can move when it suits.

Something that interests me in terms of trade deals is how the internal debate within the Conservative party about whether to apply all WTO tariffs in the event of no deal will affect our negotiating power. Many senior figures and pro-Brexit economists assume that in the event if no deal the UK will simply go tariff free rather than impose WTO terms. That would have many significant consequences, but the one relevant to this thread is that the UK would have very little to offer up to other countries it does deals with.

"Hey, USA, fancy lowering your tariffs on manufactured goods for us in exchange for us, errr, offering you the exactly the same tariff-free trade that you have from us anyway?"

Little tip - international negotiations on trade don't just involve one side.

Therefore lowering safety standards, etc and loosening rules on visas would be the main things that a British negotiating team could offer to other countries. (Ironically, including the EU in the future!)

Well, in principle no international agreement is set in stone. They always have mechanisms to modify them or for one party to leave the agreement.
Technically, by invoking article 50, the U.K. leaving the EU is in accordance with international agreement. So I don’t agree that the U.K. has demonstrated “on the world stage that it doesn’t consider international agreements to be binding.”

Negotiating new trade deals will be very difficult mostly because the schedule is far too short. The EU has been doing this task with multi-national staff for the past 40yrs, so the UK doesn’t have much resident expertise.. Hopefully, some of the U.K. members of the EU trade negotiation offices will head home and take up positions negotiating for just the U.K. They’re probably being head hunted at the very least.

I agree the trade deals will come with relaxed visa rules. I was laughing when Rees-Mogg was saying that a CETA style agreement would work for the U.K. because he apparently had no idea that CETA has the equivalent of freedom of movement that the U.K.-EU already has! (And which he has said he was against as the reason for supporting Brexit).

Other relaxed rules will include environmental, agricultural, and consumer standards.

@DoctorAllcome , the international agreement referred to is GFA. Which would be torn up by No Deal.
I assume you know this and are pretending it isn't there.

@chocolatesolveseverything

Very good point on the WTO tariffs. It is an all or none scenario because under WTO every member gets “most favored nation” or MFN tariffs. All EU nations trade with each other at zero tariffs as a benefit of membership. The senior figures are trying to minimize the impact of Brexit by preserving that zero tariff status quo with EU trade. But the only way to do that under WTO is to extend zero tariffs to everyone.

I agree it would be a mistake in the long run to go with no tariffs under WTO for exact reasons you have laid out.

I would have thought with any negotiations, the aim was to get a win-win for both sides - they both get something they want out of it. Not stamping your foot in a paddy saying give me, give me.

@bellinisurge
Thank you for clarifying that the OP was referring to the Good Friday Agreement. It did not click when I read the initial post.

Yes, the no deal advocates do have zero respect for the GFA. I don’t think they represent the U.K. majority though. The PMs troubles with Parliament indicate that he is going against the Democratic will imho.

@Peregrina
“would have thought with any negotiations, the aim was to get a win-win for both sides - they both get something they want out of it”

That is true IRL only when the negotiating parties have a roughly equal balance of power.

People need to get the idea that no deal is leverage out of their heads. It’s complete nonsense. Keeping it on the table makes the UK look foolish, not strong, and completely untrustworthy.

@HerSymphonyAndSong

Article 50 anticipates the possibility of a no deal. Has to be like that otherwise EU could prevent members from ever leaving the EU. Can't call that democratic.

However, in UK's case there is already a WA drafted and the only obstacle in Parliament was the backstop. So EU would be accused of bad faith if any revised WA was different in any aspect other than the backstop.

All comes down to the DUP and the ERG as to whether an NI only backstop/special zone goes through. Labour could be an obstacle too as they voted against the WA three times just to make the Conservative party look bad.