David Davis is like one of those blokes you meet in the pub occasionally. He can't wait to tell you how good he is. He sees himself as a titan of the business world. Everything he ever did was a doddle and to a man of his prodigious talent, things he hasn't yet done would come even easier - if he ever tried. In truth his colleagues probably all thought he was hopeless. Just after the campaign in July 2016 the little twerp told us (HERE) we would have trade deals sorted in no time at all:
"I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th [2016] to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months".
Eighteen months after triggering Article 50 we haven't started to negotiate one! How Davis ever ended up as a government minister is a mystery, or perhaps it isn't.
Even a spell in the cabinet didn't help because straight after the joint report in December 2017 when he was the top banana at DEXEU he once again gave us a fantasy, telling the totally gullible Andrew Marr (HERE) that:
".... Britain could have a better deal than those the EU has signed with other third countries in recent years.
"What we want is a bespoke outcome," he said. "We'll probably start with the best of Canada, and the best of Japan and the best of South Korea and then add to that the bit that's missing, which is the services. Mr Davis said he aimed to negotiate "individual specific arrangements for aviation, for nuclear for data - a whole series of strange [sic] which we've worked out". He added: "'Canada plus plus plus' would be one way of putting it."
However, even Marr wasn't that gullible:
"Asked whether it was realistic to strike such a deal within eight months, as it is expected the outlines of such a deal would need to be presented to the EU27 next October, he claimed it could be signed "minutes" after Britain's official departure date at the end of March 2019".
He claimed striking a free trade deal with arrangements for specific sectors "is not that complicated".
This is what the HoC Library says (page 29 HERE) about the existing EU FTAs that were going to be rolled over very easily:
We don’t know if all these third countries will roll over their agreements in time for Brexit. A report from the International Trade Committee (ITC) published in February 2018 warned of trade with 70 nations “falling off a cliff edge” if the Government did not act quickly to roll over the EU’s trade deals. It also said there was an urgent need for clarity “over the number, type, scope, extent and importance of the EU's trade-related agreements”.
In evidence to the ITC in July 2018, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said that agreements in principle had been reached with third countries on continuing trading arrangements, but that countries were waiting to see if there would be a transition period first, with a view to using the extra time to negotiate a more bespoke agreement rather than simply rolling over the existing arrangements. How many agreements had been reached, and with which countries, was still unclear.
Asked about the EU’s FTAs, Trade minister George Hollingbery said in evidence to the ITC on 4 September 2018 that although good progress was being made: “it is not an absolute given that we can get them all transitioned”.
Not that complicated, eh?
We don’t know if all these third countries will roll over their agreements in time for Brexit. A report from the International Trade Committee (ITC) published in February 2018 warned of trade with 70 nations “falling off a cliff edge” if the Government did not act quickly to roll over the EU’s trade deals. It also said there was an urgent need for clarity “over the number, type, scope, extent and importance of the EU's trade-related agreements”.
In evidence to the ITC in July 2018, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said that agreements in principle had been reached with third countries on continuing trading arrangements, but that countries were waiting to see if there would be a transition period first, with a view to using the extra time to negotiate a more bespoke agreement rather than simply rolling over the existing arrangements. How many agreements had been reached, and with which countries, was still unclear.
Asked about the EU’s FTAs, Trade minister George Hollingbery said in evidence to the ITC on 4 September 2018 that although good progress was being made: “it is not an absolute given that we can get them all transitioned”.
Not that complicated, eh?
The Institute for Government (HERE) published a report the other day with the title: Brexit, 6 months to go. It puts things into rather better perspective than Davis or Fox. The bar chart on page 8 is particularly interesting as it compares the nine years taken to negotiate the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement with the 21 months we've actually got. Page 27 has a summary of our preparedness for March 2019 across ten areas of government. We are only ready in one and that is the continued payment of EU subsidies - anything involving taxpayers money is always the easiest isn't it?.
A few quotes from the IfG report:
"Delivering Brexit is an unprecedented task for modern government – in its speed, scale and political and diplomatic difficulty, and the level of public scrutiny to which it is subject. At its core there are three main challenges: negotiation, legislation and implementation".
"Substantive negotiations on the future relationship are yet to begin, and will not start in earnest until after March 2019. If a withdrawal deal with provision for a transition is agreed, there will be just 21 months to start and conclude the talks – significantly less time than EU deals usually take".
"If there is no Withdrawal Agreement, a raft of further legislation will be required. There is a real risk that this will not be in place and the UK will face a legal hiatus".
"Secrecy and sensitivity around Brexit have meant that the Government has failed to give business sufficient time to prepare for no deal. In the past, they have been given years to get ready for changes that are small in comparison with Brexit. They now have just six months".
"March 2019 is not the end of Brexit, though. If the UK reaches a deal on withdrawal, much of the more difficult work – agreeing a future relationship and implementing it – will still be to come. And the time pressure will not go away. The second cliff edge of December 2020 will soon be rapidly approaching".
"If there is no Withdrawal Agreement, a raft of further legislation will be required. There is a real risk that this will not be in place and the UK will face a legal hiatus".
"Secrecy and sensitivity around Brexit have meant that the Government has failed to give business sufficient time to prepare for no deal. In the past, they have been given years to get ready for changes that are small in comparison with Brexit. They now have just six months".
"March 2019 is not the end of Brexit, though. If the UK reaches a deal on withdrawal, much of the more difficult work – agreeing a future relationship and implementing it – will still be to come. And the time pressure will not go away. The second cliff edge of December 2020 will soon be rapidly approaching".
"But failure to secure a Withdrawal Agreement would have even bigger consequences. It would represent the most dramatic change in the UK’s relationship with the EU in the shortest period of time. There is a risk that the necessary legislation would not be in place, leading to a legal hiatus".
"The far bigger problem, however, would be ensuring that government, business and citizens are prepared for a sudden exit. Large government projects – from automatic pension enrolment to the Olympics – can take over a decade. There are now only months to go and it will still be some time before we know for certain if we are heading for no deal. Dominic Raab, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, told the House of Commons this month that “the British people can rest assured that the UK will be ready for Brexit, deal or no deal”. In reality, there’s a huge difference between the two outcomes".
"The far bigger problem, however, would be ensuring that government, business and citizens are prepared for a sudden exit. Large government projects – from automatic pension enrolment to the Olympics – can take over a decade. There are now only months to go and it will still be some time before we know for certain if we are heading for no deal. Dominic Raab, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, told the House of Commons this month that “the British people can rest assured that the UK will be ready for Brexit, deal or no deal”. In reality, there’s a huge difference between the two outcomes".
It all makes for worrying reading. As the IoG point out, most EU trade deals take very a long time to negotiate, legislate and implement. Far longer than 21 months even when the negotiating partner is rational, knows clearly what it wants, standards are converging not diverging, services are not included, the negotiations are carried out without a clock ticking the minutes down to a deadline and it all takes place beyond the glare of publicity. More than this, the putative trading partner is normally beginning from a lower base and hoping to increase trade. No great domestic interest is usually involved since the expectation is that jobs and export prospects will improve not deteriorate. In other words it's all good.
Brexit will be totally the opposite. We will be negotiating almost certainly to reduce trade and therefore impact jobs and export earnings and everyone from fishermen to bankers and broadcasters will be watching with great interest as their livelihoods are potentially traded away.
To those who still ask: Why haven't we left yet, the answer will slowly be provided over the next five years alongside all the benefits of remaining in the EU. So far we have been involved in the relatively easy bit. If anyone thought that Brexit was going to be over anytime soon they are going to be sadly disappointed.
