This amounts to a 25% value reduction for the EU gradually over this period
Ok, here's my first bash at how I think UK-EU fisheries will be managed in future now we have the agreement
It’s quite complicated in parts, so would appreciate any corrections…
@StevePeers @BD_Stew @AntonSpisak (& others)
This amounts to a 25% value reduction for the EU gradually over this period
By 31 Jan, a schedule must be agreed for talks, culminating in final agreement by 10 December (this fits in with the internal EU fisheries negotiation)
I.e. it continues the status quo but prevents a fish grab in the provisional period
Further provisional access can be negotiated thereafter if there's still no overall agreement
This basically has three levels:
1) reduction of fishing access and tariffs on fish
2) tariffs on other goods
3) suspension of other parts of the trade and economic partnership
In other words, they don’t have to apply 1) and 2) first
i.e. one side could warn the other that provisional access would not continue in 2 weeks' time, but retaliation couldn’t apply until then
If it’s yes and yes, then fine; if it’s no to either, they must be removed or changed
However, doing so would also automatically terminate the trade, aviation and road transport sections (a high price!)
i.e. if UK terminated in May 2021, EU fishing rights would continue until the end of December 2022
More from Brexit
A quote from this excellent piece, neatly summarising a core impact of Brexit.
The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.
Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.
It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.
In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.
But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.
The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.
Brexit reality bites: The new dawn of trade friction via @RTENews https://t.co/p6VdlhZUAN
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) January 9, 2021
Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.
It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.
In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.
But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.
