If that 5% or whatever outstanding boils down to fundamental ideological differences, then how do you move forward? It's clearly bonkers if you're crowing about a tiny trade deal with Cabo Verde while ignoring the trading monolith that accounts for half of your economy next door though.I don't understand why talks wouldn't continue even if no deal is reached.
Why would the UK not want as many trade deals as possible. I thought these talks were accelerated to avoid the UK crashing out.
Maybe I've misunderstood but it seems silly to get to 90-98% done and then decide to stop altogether because it wasn't finished this year.
The FT has been running this feature prominently for the last couple of days. I won't post the whole thing so they don't hound Niall, but it uses the TTIP example @JPRouve mentioned, along with a couple of others.
The rationality of a no-deal Brexit
Indeed, it’s not necessarily obvious to each side, particularly the Brits, where their own red lines are. Johnson doesn’t know how his headbanging Brexiter backbenchers or the Labour opposition will react to one deal or another.
But the point about rational failure still stands. Johnson might genuinely believe the LPF provisions are unconscionable vassalage, or that a nation stands or falls by the size of its herring fleet. Or he might be channelling some weird hybrid of Kamal Nath and Winston Churchill and has made the political calculation he would prefer to stand defiantly alone and doesn’t want a deal at all.
If the EU-UK talks genuinely do break down over fish quotas, or because Johnson actively wants to crash out, it will tell us a lot about dysfunctional trade preferences. But it won’t necessarily mean that the negotiators are ignorant or inept. If we had to guess, we’d still say a deal is likely. But if talks collapse, it’s entirely possible that that’s the rational thing to happen. Terrifying, isn’t it?
https://www.ft.com/content/c6ae94cc-cc21-4a07-93b9-29aa940163ef