英国と欧州はBrexit後、どのように新たな関係を築いていくのか。 (How will Britain and Europe build a new relationship after Brexit?)

字幕表動画を再生する

Georgina.
Sam.
Thank you both very much indeed.
For strange time to join us.
Let's start by looking at what the 31st of January actually changes.
What happens that day?
What changes?
I think you and I won't really feel the changes.
But of course, the big changes that the UK is no longer a member state, it becomes 1/3 country.
That means practically it has no institutional presence in Brussels.
It's no longer taking part in this.
You meetings.
Diplomats will no longer be part those working groups.
But the UK does remain in the single market and Customs Union.
So actually, we are still abiding by your rules and regulations.
We still apart the same market.
We can still travel freely to the U.
S.
So it's really just a sort of a big change.
But you and I can't feel it on.
It will feel rather cosmetic.
On the festive February, we can still be taken to court by the European institutions for the purposes of meetings we've got.
We've gotta have a glass of the war.
We've got to ask people as they leave the meeting.
What happened in there exactly?
I mean, this transition period was set up because you can, you realised, quite early on in the negotiations that they wouldn't have time to negotiate the divorce, said Withdraw and also their future relationships.
Okay, well, let's have an extra couple of months where the UK remains part the single market and customs union.
But we resolve the withdraw.
You're no longer in the new member, but you're still in our market, and that gives us a little bit more time of flexibility to figure out what happens next.
And the irony is, I suppose, going back to your point about we have to be trying to find out what happens from outside the room with the glass on the wars.
We probably don't have to, and we are beefing up our presence in Brussels because actually finding out what's going on is much tougher is much tougher when you're not in the room.
And I know this is something that George is written about very recently.
Actually, you know what government I think has recognized.
That actually will be much harder because it's not really just sitting in the room.
It's like walking on the way to the meeting with your neighbor, your colleagues, your other Indian diplomats Figuring out what's your government's policy position on this?
Can we cannot write, can incorporate.
When you become 1/3 country, you're just curing the door with everyone else.
So it's a little harder.
And presumably, Sam, we start trade talks straight away or not quite like that.
So no, once we have left the you, then of course, trade talks as to the future relationship can begin, but they're not going to begin straight away because the U is still developing its mandate for the negotiations on the future.
Relationship on that won't be confirmed until the end of February.
So I think, realistically speaking, we're looking for trade talks between the UK and the EU to begin in March.
And what are we learning about that mandate?
What's with the glass to the wall?
I think at least to me it's it's nothing unexpected.
We know what the U.
K's red lines or if we don't want to betray those red line, what progress Johnson priorities are, which is.
He wants the flexibility to regulate the domestic U K market as he sees fit, and he wants to be able to strike new free trade agreements with other countries the U.
S, Australia, New Zealand, and he wants to end freedom of movement.
So in terms of the trade relationship between the U.
K and the U, the options available are very limited.
So what we're talking about is a free trade agreement at best between the U.
K in the U.
What does this do?
In practice?
It could remove all tariffs and quotas.
This is useful, but it's not going to do much to remove regulatory barriers to trade or facilitate trade and service is, for example, and it's funny, isn't it?
Is when you listen to that, you think, Why is it taking them so long to figure out their mandate?
Then if we do have a rough idea of what a basic deal could cover?
And that's because actually, different member states have different priorities when it comes to the UK on for any trade agreement with the EU does there's always a process where even internal bargaining, you know, busy and my priorities there are trade offs.
They start to sort of prioritized aesthetics on that prioritization of issues become so much more important when you when you got under you.
Because this is this is actually what they're discussing in you, sir, What do we prioritize in a short space of time?
We can do we prioritize because actually, this is the commission that really wants to prioritize talks because they want to prioritize trade in a couple of other issues.
But for some of the member states, they're saying, Well, let's just try and do everything at first and then we'll prioritize if we need to later.
So just in a mad panic, the potentially.
But we're just working that out.
But of course, this is just the normal process of the EU developing a mandate by the time it's published, or if they do publishers they might not publish the actual mandate they might publish.
The objectives linked to the mandate way have a pretty clear idea of what they want to do online and who's gonna win that battle.
The commission, all those member states, would like to try everything commission that wants to prioritize.
I mean, from the eaves perspective, they act as one right.
The commission acts on behalf of the 27.
It isn't one player amongst 28 But of course the commission have the experience of negotiating with these trade agreements.
They would have had experience negotiating with the British team.
That withdrawal agreement on there is a sense when you speak to people in Brussels that over in the UK they also want to leave everything on the table.
They don't want to prioritize those issues.
So I think it's really difficult to know who is going to be leading who's going to win that battle?
Because actually, we have a sense of what some member states priorities, but we don't know everything, so it's really did so If I was just too put it, look into my eyes What the Fortune teller's crystal ball, Crystal Ball, Yes device to look into it with a digital one.
These guys looking to my digital crystal ball that's linked up by five feet of my fridge or something like that.
I would say What what do I expect from the next year, first half of the year?
Once this discussion gets going, we know the EU's going to want to talk about fishing straightaway.
That's in the political declaration.
They want to get something resolved on that by the first of July.
We know that there's going to be some arguments about the preconditions that you is going to place on a free trade agreement on negotiating free trading room with the UK So these the controversial issues around the UK remaining aligned on state aid and also committing not to roll back on you labor and environmental protection.
So I think this first half of the year we're going to get a lot of chest beating.
I don't actually expect substantive negotiations toe happen until the order.
There's a funny old contradiction in the middle of all of that, isn't it that Europe says you can only walk through the door towards a bare bones free trade agreement if you promise not to massively expand the statement state funding or to deregulate it in the other direction?
But that's, I think, because you is more than just a market, it's, you know, if you want to think of it differently, it's a regulatory superpower.
So when you talk to people in Brussels, they say that we know that the UK wants so much.
Otherwise, why would vote to leave the single market in Customs union?
It's how you manage that diversions and it's how you prevent, you know, our businesses from facing an unfair competitive advantage of how much do they think we really want to divert?
Because I don't remember it being a massive part of the 2016 debate or even the general election that we just had.
So when it comes to diverging in terms of, say, working directive rules that govern the labor market environment.
So to be honest, that's labor and environment they're a bit concerned about but not overly concerned about, and you can see it in terms of prioritization.
So what they're asking for in labor and environment is for us to commit not to remove any legislation, not toe roll back.
But the thing that really worried about this state aid so they're worried that because Brexit, as they view it, is going to be bad for the U.
K economy, they recognize that the government's going to be tempted to step in to try and make up for the investment the private investment shortfall on.
They're worried they'll do so by pouring a lot of cash into industries bribing industries to move to the U.
K instead of the U on the like.
This wasn't up somewhere on this was difficult initially of mania, Corbin based concern.
But obviously the rhetoric around the new Johnson government has also been one that's a bit more free spending the talk and this is what they're concerned about.
Of course, this is this is this is one of the areas of negotiation.
This is something the U.
K says we will not have the you says you must not.
My take on this is if you look at the history of the negotiations, is the You will move a bit in.
The UK will have to move a lot if something is going to be agreed, I mean and also when you read a lot of press coverage here in the UK, it's like, Oh, you know that you aren't taking the prime minister's claim seriously.
They absolutely are taking the prime minister's cames seriously, and they've always been broken.
We negotiate with the British government, So if we have secretaries of state coming out saying well, you know, our intention is to divers, they're going to take that very seriously.
But of course the lot of it is the outcome of negotiations will be a compromise.
Who gives in more way?
We'll see.
But I think at the start of any negotiation, you're going to, you know, put a position that you that you think might be your your harshest stones, knowing probably that you're not going to end up there so that I think the real difficulty for any Brexit watcher over the coming months is going to be Who's saying what?
Because in you it's not just about the commission.
You've got a new European Parliament.
People representing constituencies call manufacturing industry in Germany that feel in the mood to stand up and say things.
Who were the real shapers?
Hear the music shapers?
What do they say?
Is it just political stars?
I have to say something, Or is it really a ninja cation of what use thinking?
And I think sort of disentangling the politics from the policy position is going to be really trick.
And on this divergence debate, there's actually being a lot of confusion within the UK about this because the EU is making these demands on environment, labor, state aid.
But these aren't demands about product standards.
They're not demands about.
If you want to sell into the EU market, you have to meet those product standards.
If you're outside of the U, they can no longer assume they are.
They match.
They meet the criteria for a new product standards, so they will check them on the way in.
That's the default.
We're leaving the EU single market.
We're leaving.
The customs union will have a free trade agreement.
They're going to be checks on our products going into you.
What you are worried about our that we're, is that we're going to create a super competitive environment environment for businesses by deregulating by propping them up with loads of money and then making that a precondition of tariff and quota free access to you on one of the discussions that were going to have.
Now, I think, is whether that precondition is a precondition for the entire trading relationship or just for tariff unquote free trade.
Because if it's just for Tara from quota free trade, there is a scenario whereby Johnson and say, Well, I'm not signing up to this and in return we will accept that on certain certain products there will be tariffs.
So, for example, in agriculture, and we haven't talked about access to fishing waters yet.
So that's another you demands.
Also potentially on our fish exports to the U.
So there's this is where some of the negotiating will happen and, well, I'm not sure what happened straightaway.
You think there's no way this that stuff will be tied it up in the 1st 6 months Or maybe not even the second?
I think it will get tied it up if it does in the at the end of the third quarter of the year.
And the reason I think that is that we've also got this other deadline that we haven't spoken about yet, which is the first of July, which is the deadline for the U.
K.
Asking the U to extend the transition period or not.
And, of course, Johnson has said he won't do this.
I personally don't think he will do this, but in a way that creates its own negotiations in negotiating ecosystem.
You're all going to be asking him about it in the media, you say, Are you going to extend Prime Minister?
No.
Why not?
Until we've cleared that threshold, it feels that is difficult to see any any stuff.
There's nothing saying that it has to be the UK to extend that, you know, asked to extend the transition, you could potentially I mean, I you know, I think it's unlikely at this point, but who knows?
Way haven't stopped.
These negotiations haven't started.
Once all those discussions begin, you know, just the scale of the task.
It might be that there will be pressured not from the commission or you governments, but it might come from elsewhere because the European Parliament have been very care.
We will not be rushed into this.
We want time for public debate.
We want time to scrutinize this disagreement on if there are negotiations that have pushed back beyond 2020 way.
Want to be sure that we're happy with that too, because they need to sign it off.
We've touched on whether we played by the European rules or on environment, labor, all that sort of stuff.
Social regulations.
But on product regulations which you mentioned, Sam, what's the sense of how much the government wants to diverge either in product standards, all the way, you get to the same standard?
What?
Where is that going?
And how much on a sliding scale of pain with the you be willing to delay products of the border even longer if we weren't playing by their rules or they just generally weren't happy with.
I think the thing to understand is that once the UK has the flexibility to change its product standards to diverge, the you will treat us as if we already have.
So actually, what the gun is built in in terms that delay at the border?
Yes.
Oh, so once you have the flexibility divergent treated as if you already have the actual control's new processes you face at the border or in market when placing those products on the European market fixed.
And it's quite a big leap in cost from what exists now.
And I'm my feeling with the government sort of percentage on variations we're talking about is the margin is difficult to give exact percentages of value.
I will give you an example of a product.
Maybe that's easier if you export a product of animal origin to the use of some land outside of the use Single market, that product of animal origin, the lamb will have to enter the you Vira Certified Veterinary Border Inspection post with specific point of entry, where it will be subject to 100% document checks on 100% identity checks on.
By the way, those documents will need to be signed by vet.
The rate of physical inspection could be 50% or above, although there is precedent for the U reducing that rate of physical inspection via agreement that you have done a green with New Zealand that does that.
So that's possible for the UK.
So what I'm talking about here, this is the UK could have the exact same rules as the you on day one, as it will do, and these controls would already be in place.
What my feeling we're getting back to?
What does the government want to do?
It wants to have this flexibility to divert.
I think if you talk to me in practice, they will acknowledge, actually, in a lot of areas we choose not to, but in a way that doesn't matter, because once you've gained the flexibility to diverge, you're going to feel the pain of divergence.
And my question for the government, then, is what's the point of getting this flexibility.
If you're not going to do anything with it, give me some examples of what you want to change.
You get examples of nuance.
Not at the moment.
You can point to a few saying GM food.
Maybe that's something that gets brought up, and then this sort of theoretical examples about financial service is and data.
But you could if you pop proud a little further.
You never get anything.
I think you know there are three things.
One is you.
It's an insurance policy.
What they have to protect and uphold standards for their own consumers and citizens.
So it is.
It is that second is, you know, the U.
K.
Is going to become 1/3 country.
So why should it be treated differently toe other third countries?
I mean, there is this real precedent.
You know what we offer the U.
K.
Has to be negotiated.
It has to come from, you know, our lawyers in Brussels have to say that this is possible because there are third countries around the world are watching this.
They don't necessarily want the same arrangement of the U.
K.
And the U will negotiate and reach, but But they would like more access to the single market.
And one of the reasons why they haven't been able to is because of these sort of checks.
And and then the fact that you can't trust, say, the South Koreans to say, Well, yeah, we conforms to find entry.
You know, if there is a precedent here on, it's very difficult to change that overnight, even if you actually start from the same point of departure.
So it's not really a point of departure.
It's where you end up, and if you don't know where you end up, then you're going to have to sort of Kate.
And this is this is the cost of freedom, right?
So to put, to put it sort of in the language of those those advocating for in that this is the price you pay to be able to do what you want when it comes to domestic economy and sign new free trade agreements with the rest of the world.
On that freedom has a price, and also there's this assumption.
I think in the UK if we have a free trade agreement, we will trade tariff free with you.
We might do, but tariff free trade under a free trade agreement is conditional.
You have to be able to demonstrate that the product you're selling under exporting under that free trade agreement was actually produced in the U.
K.
And there's lots of criteria you have to fulfill.
And that might be easy for land to give that examples quite easy to say.
Well, this land was produced in Wales, right?
But a car okay, the general rule.
When it comes to you, free trade agreements of you, you have to demonstrate the 55% of the value of that car was created in the UK in order to qualify for Terry for free trade.
If you look around the car industry, that's not how much value is largely created in the U.
K.
Is down more like 40%.
So these are all issues that you have to deal with, and then even if you do qualify the tariff unquote free trade, you have to prove it on the cost of demonstrating rules of origin compliance.
I do know the percentage for this is put it between two and 6% of the value of the product, and this of course, begs.
The question means chief government's done A lot of work on this is how is the government communicating with business on those manufacturers and produces, You know, because it's not just about government being prepared and no one at once in the upcoming negotiations and having that time to implement that deal that you've reached with you, it's that well, businesses have had time to adapt and put those processes in place.
You know, have put aside that money for the extra paperwork and all of that.
You know that there is a real communications question here on there is a question of just simple business preparedness on the timetable that sounds talking about.
We don't really get down to the media business until the very end of the year.
Business doesn't have time to get ready.
Business come react very quickly on dhe.
They will seem sometimes prepare, perhaps for the worst case scenario, because it it's not clear to me that they are.
That's because there's a sense that they've been marched up and down so many times.
That particular the no deal, but that no trade deal outcome is still a possibility.
So are you is a business on particularly small, you know?
Small.
Exactly.
Do you prepare for no tree?
D'oh!
Do you prepare for some kind of deal?
Basically, what's that basic deal cover?
So there are lots of questions and I think that pressure from business I seem will come to ask you about that.
Yeah.
I mean, I have bean relatively silent in this whole debate business.
Are we going to hear a raw or are we going thio during the actual trade negotiations, or are we just going to hear quietly has been difficult for big deployment, since they just sort of send their business elsewhere.
It's been difficult for business because if you think that the consumer base for them in the UK is largely split 50 50 on leave remain lines coming out strongly in favor of an outcome that could have been portrayed as betraying Brexit could have cost them sales.
It could have cost thumbs customers, so that's been triggered so far.
So I wonder if once Brexit is delivered at the end of the month, if it becomes a bit easier for them to start talking about the future relationship and say, well, this isn't about Brexit Brexit's happened.
This is This is about the future, but I wonder if I'm not sure how much they're going to cut through.
They haven't been cutting through so far on the question for me to go back to Georgie's point about, can they get ready in time?
And the question you asked is if we do have this free trade agreement in place by the end of the year and negotiate, and I think that's possible, I mean, they can't think that that's possible.
Bells and whistles No, I think if we're talking about the broader U.
U K Partnership, it's not going to all be done by the end of the year because there's lots of areas of cooperation.
Defense, security, justice, home affairs and that commission recognize that the UK trade having to park some of some of it.
They will just continue to go.
They might not part, but it just will take a bit longer, maybe, or they're just try and bridge the interim period.
Vier unilateral type processes.
That's the kind of processes would have seen happen in event of no deal.
But the question for me is, if we do head towards this free trade agreement that looks likely that will have a lot of cost attached to.
It will be a vast, different, vastly different from the status quo.
Are we going to move to that agreement on January the 1st 2021?
Or if we account for the bank holiday?
That's a January, the second New Year's New Year's Day, the door the day after on?
Because if we do go from status quo to that future relationship, as envisioned overnight, the kind of visible rupture, the visible impact at the border is similar to having left without an agreement in place.
So the question I have for the government and I think businesses will have as well is okay, this is your desired end destination.
Are you going T 01?
Once you've got that, once you've got it negotiated, are you going to ask for it to come in overnight or you're gonna talk to the you about maybe phasing this in gradually over time.
So we're talking about more death by many cuts, rather, And that is a question for the you, as well as how stringent they're going.
T o on the first of January 2021.
Thes Well, no, that standards on the first of January 20.
What?
We expect them to be the same.
So it's not really that, but it's all the, you know, the checks and on the border.
We haven't tested this yet.
We don't know what it looks that we know that when there was a lot of talk about no deal that France had you no parking zone located parking sze to prepare the border checks.
Will those exercises begin again?
Because maybe if you have a basic deal, you're going to have more checks, you're gonna have more border infrastructure.
Who's testing that?
So I think it's a question for the UK, but it's also and most definitely three questions.
I think there's there is.
Does Boris Johnson once he I don't think it extend the transition period.
But once he has an agreement in place, will he want to avoid a rupture and try and phase in the new relationship?
Maybe.
Will you accept this?
Maybe on Dhe?
Then there's just a practical question of how do you phase in this new relationship.
Very wind countries join the EU.
They phase in their integration over time.
That's when in lots of free trade agreements, you Japan, the car tariff reductions phased out over seven years.
But how do you phase in friction?
How do you phase in checks?
Because every time you phase in a new level of disruption, you're going to annoy someone.
You go to her toes.
There is just the question about Do you want to do it gradually, or do you just ripped the plaster off overnight on When you look a lot of trade associations, you trade associations.
When they asked them members, you know what is the biggest cause of trade?
Disrupted?
Often it isn't Terrace.
It's all that the non is the paperwork.
It's the, you know, certification that the euro quiz.
It's all of those things and actually, I think when you've been part of the same market, you don't realize it's always like pipes in a house.
All of a sudden, we stripped floorboards and we realize there's all these parts we want to.
Now you re pum you do a whole new plumbing system on.
We realised the extent to which we were embedded in the system and how we're going to have to just start afresh, and it's just going to be complicated.
It sounds like what they're planning to use the apartment building over the road.
You've touched on the timetable there in terms of how the next year's pans out.
But just tell me a bit about people aren't used to following trade negotiations closely.
What kind of a phenomenon are they?
Will we?
Will we see people going back with them?
Forward, Tammany groups, work streams?
Does this whole thing get divided into?
Do we ever hear anything?
Does it go act like a submarine and sort of pop up?
About six months later, we find out what's going on.
How do they work?
You say trade negotiations work a certain way, but this is gonna be a very different trade negotiation, partly because we're not looking Thio reduce barriers.
We're going to be basically erected new barriers.
So and also, if we don't reach a deal by the end of the year and we haven't extended, we can't return to the status quo.
So it's a different negotiation altogether.
It's very difficult to know how many work strange will be happening.
Will they be happening in parallel, usually you like system of close one chapter and then open another.
We know that you can e wanted to negotiate a security partnership.
Are we going to be able to separate that from our trade negotiations?
So if talks on trade turn really sour wall, those impact our discussions on security.
It's in fact, it's not clear it'll what I think is really important to recognize is on the U side.
It will be different in that if it's a mixed agreement, that is an agreement that covers areas of you law Onda member state your.
Then you have to get the sign off with E u 20 seven's The 27 governments.
You'll have to get the European Parliament on board on.
You'll have to get national parliaments and possibly regional parliaments on board.
That's a lot of people.
S O Barnier only show Bonnie Houthi.
Obviously that you chief Brexit negotiator, has been sort of booted for his outreach.
He goes round.
We've already seen him on his you tools.
He's not any meeting with governments.
He's meeting with Parliament's.
He's meeting with business executives.
He's saying that these these are our positions trying to see and test where there might be hungry.
But for the you, they can then turn around saying they're really sorry.
Our position is the outcome of a lengthy talks amongst not only 27 governments but everyone else.
And there's not much that we can do.
Do it.
T Budge on this on because there are so many people who need to give their consent, it will mean that they're sort of powerful.
Memories from the new verbal B will be small.
But one point I would make, though, is I think everyone likes to look for precedent.
So and when when we say, How long does it take to negotiate a trade agreement?
People have to stay with you.
Canada Agreement It took seven years from from when it began to completion, and I'm just not sure how you helpful that is in this in this context, because it's a vastly different scenario.
Is Georgie just mentioned?
You do have this cliff edge at the end of the year where everything changes, you can't return to the status quo on dhe.
The point I'd make is the reason trade negotiations often take a long time.
It's not.
There's not technical reasons It's not because it takes so long to write that of those 1400 pages of text that takes a while, but actually, quite a lot of boiler plate is copied and pasted from elsewhere.
The reason they take a long time is it's both parties that to negotiating partners are waiting for a politically opportune moment to make the consent domestic concessions necessary to get that agreement over the lines.
In the case of the EU and Canada, what were they waiting for?
They were kind of waiting for someone like Trump to throw the world into turmoil.
And then the U in Canada say, Look, we're gonna do this agreement as evidence of our commitment to the rules based system and being good, good guys, that's what That's why I got signed in the end.
But in this case, we have a firm deadline.
We've got to get it done in a year, or else that's their consequences.
What does it look like?
The government's plan?
It It looks like they intend to try to start something, maybe even before even across the channel across the Atlantic, in order to make a point that were big players here we've got other fish to find.
So I don't think they know yet.
Actually, what they want to do with the U.
S.
They know they need to start negotiating with them.
And I would I would I would advise beginning negotiating straightaway with Donald Trump because he's a piece of it.
Petty.
If you don't negotiate with him interest rate, we don't engage.
There could be punitive measures applied to the UK as punishment.
So of course we should get negotiating with him.
But the U.
S the U.
S.
Clearly has an objective, which is to sign a comprehensive trade agreement with the U.
K.
But that comprehensive trade agreement requires the UK to diverge from certain you approaches, which means that we can't remain aligned in areas such as food standards with the with the U.
So they're trying to provoke that in a way.
But for the UK, do we really want to happen this year?
I don't think we know yet.
We haven't have objectives published of the U.
S.
A.
U S.
U K negotiation.
What I think will happen is that we don't have a big launch event.
Science started.
We started the talks with the US it will be lots.
There'll be lots of firework drumroll found drum rolls that this will excite quite a lot of people that will.
The Brexit supporters you've always wanted This will go.
Yes.
And then what I think will happen is we're going to try and find something small related to trade to negotiate with Donald Trump.
Quickly limited defined agreement.
We will, We will try.
So for it to give a completely hypothetical example we will support, we will scrap the digital service is tax in return for the U.
S.
Excluding us from the Boeing Airbus retaliation swimmers that simmers that because then it could just be a phase one ready for the November elections.
For Trump's Trump can say, Go, go down a trade agreement with the UK with Japan with don't need Congress's competence deal.
And then on the Johnson inside, it said he can say, Look, we've done the first bit of a trade agreement and now we'll take our time to negotiate the rest.
And in a way, I think that probably suits both parties.
Don't say why.
No, I mean, what's the new case rating to leave the you know, has voted to leave.
The European Union is going to become an independent, sovereign country.
It makes sense for the government to explore trade opportunities with the U.
S.
I think where I would caution is that the U.
S.
Like the UK has its own interests.
It's the U.
S.
Has made no secret of the fact that it wants to have a European foothold, you know?
And you've written a lot about this, you know, being able to demonstrate to the U or hi guys.
While the U.
K you know has similar standards to you, they've accepted our demands.
So why can't you the you accept our demands.
So there is a question of how much they're going to try and use this deal with the UK, whatever shape it takes to then dangle in front of you.
And that's the other thing as well.
I think you know a lot of time talking about Brexit UK you relations, but also then the UK US trade negotiations.
These aren't taking place in isolation on actually, the Commissioner for Trade you Commission for Trade, Phil Hogan was in D.
C just last week.
Wasn't he talking to the Americans about opportunities to deepen trade between the U.
S and you.
So all of this is happening at the same time, great for tree nerds and people like us.
But it's going to be a lot to follow, particularly for the UK government, which until the end of the year will still be abiding by your rules and have to adopt any need.
You let legislation you talk about a drumroll fanfare moment with the U.
S.
Who else is at the front of the queue for those sort of moments?
What other trips might receive the prime minister?
So I think we know the countries that have been made priority.
So I think Australia and New Zealand those negotiations could begin quite quickly.
And they could actually even conclude by the end of the year, because, in a way, what they're asking off from the UK is easier to give.
They just want us to remove some tariffs.
They don't necessarily.
They will react to the U.
U K negotiations on respond and shape their demands accordingly.
They're not the U.
S.
Where they can make demands of the UK that shaped the U.
K's negotiation with you.
The other countries Japan.
Andi, this is try and make this point quite a lot, which actually, if we were really thinking about this strategically and pragmatically, the country would actually focus.
Our efforts on is Japan.
They're the third biggest investor into the UK after the U in the U.
S.
And they've been quite upset by Brexit.
They've bean offended.
There's a lack of trust now because they viewed the UK is their route into Europe.
They see this is a bit of betrayal, and Japanese investment in anecdotally seems to be the seeping out of the new case.
Likely so in terms of bit rebuilding bridges, the Japanese are important.
They're just important for another reason, which is internationally.
Actually, we're in a similar position to Japan now.
We're not We're a big, big, important country, but we're not the US We're not that you were not China on this world.
These trade wars are going on a rounders, and we're gonna have to navigate that somehow.
And who are we going to want to be?
Doing that with?
One of those countries is Japan.
I don't visit Japan.
It really wants the W T.
a.
For example, Thio.
Hopefully, this is something that the U.
K government has been very clear about.
We want the W to toe work as well.
We want to try and resolve the dispute, says Mechanism, body that's just been in paralysis since December 2018.
So So there's this real commitment on both sides to re permit rules based international order.
Ah, you know, free trade, except for whatever those grand sort of statements mean.
But there is also scope there for politically and that the political level to send a strong signal of commitment.
And it's not only about working with you working with the U.
N international organizations is complicated.
If your negotiations are going very well.
So who are you getting tea be working with at that point?
And I think this is where the UK government has an opportunity, actually, is to really think their countries around the world looking to the UK, so thinking, what role do you want to play on?
It's now that the government must be clear and try and function.
And, of course, it's also be realistic, way or not.
You know there's lots of people who do accept this, but we're not.
As I said, we're not the US.
We're not the you were not China in these discussions.
We are something different.
We are something a bit smaller.
Yes, we had to have more flexibility, be nimble.
And yes, we have a commitment upholding the international order.
But we're not just going to walk into the W T.
O on day one and say, Guys, we're back and we're gonna fix it.
Won't do anything that won't have any use.
People get annoyed, but they're things.
They're positive things we can do.
We can help build coalitions.
We can act positively in terms of adding resource in terms of time, money, people to the different sort of boring things that go on in the international sort of multilateral system within the W t o around just looking at different regulations and checking if they match up.
Is everyone okay?
These things build, build goodwill, But this is the sort of thing we should be focusing on.
I don't think running headlong into a negotiation with the U.
S.
Where Trump Trump's view of trade policy, as I put it is, is akin to a protection racket he ups the threat level by threatening to impose tariffs.
And then if you pay him some money, he'll take the boy.
You know, that's that's not a good basis for a relationship.
Of course, we have to engage with him, But let's just be sensible.
But let me just find a relationship with the you going beyond the end of this year.
It was We said in the past that we were gonna be like Switzerland negotiating forever.
But with the divergence that we're talking about but not being subject to a U courts, is he gonna be different from that?
All, actually, does the splits the model hold?
It'll be with us forever and rumbling and will be constantly updating lots of many agreements all over the shop.
What's our future?
Well, first, it's not really just about trade, and I think way often focus on trade because that's what it looks like.
There's gonna be the busiest, jazzy big obstacles, but actually it's much more comprehensive than that.
Um, I think it's this question about trying to get your ing way.
You know, when when were we remember salespeople that you were shock in a pond?
Now you're leaving the U in the world, you're going to be more like a mid size fish in an ocean.
It's about influence it's about.
And it's about trying to get other countries to back your views on Tiu, be able to try and somehow shake the global agenda.
You need support for that on the question, then becomes Where does you know what is that you're going to be for this government and future government?
Is it going to be a priority?
Yes or no?
But we need to be.
The government needs to be thinking now on determining.
Now it's long term.
New strategy on DDE This is what the report that Sam was talking about earlier that that we at the Institute for Government published last week, and it's looking about Why should you can't just It's not because you're leaving that that's that you can cross out the you and you and you can do things fundamentally different.
You is there.
It's the world's largest market on our doorstep.
We are going to continue to be affected by certain use regulations.
If anything in Northern Ireland on, we have an interest in trying to influence those you fools.
But as I said, it's beyond trade.
It's also about security.
The question is, How do you go about that?
What resources you need on?
Can you do anything if ministers, they're just not interested but also in terms of will.
The political declaration that the document that lays out the trajectory for these negotiations on the future relationship acknowledges that this agreement needs to be given the space to evolve over time?
Azula we said, We're not just talking about trade were talking about other areas of cooperation of Social Security, justice and home affairs, defense research.
And this is all going to be packaged into some broader agreement, you know?
So it's gonna be a partnership agreement that has trade is a component part, but lots of other things, and over time this will change and they'll be structures to allow for it to change.
We'll continue to meet with them every so often in the context of this broader partnership and discuss Bitch made me want to tweak.
Maybe you want to update.
So over the course of 10 15 20 years in 20 years time, will it look exactly the same as it looks a year from now, it will be decided to go a bit closer or further, so we might not have the same time.
We have not had the same type of conservative government again in five years time.
We might have a Labour government and they might.
The relationship with the U Differently, they might want to re negotiate with it.
This is going to be a constant process, and that's okay.
And if you're guessing now looking in that digital crystal ball 20 years from now, we're in a sort of future that was close to the the deal that Theresa May was talking about at the end, where you really are hugging the year institutions quite close.
You're somewhere a halfway across the Atlantic, and I think it really we often forget that the UK is changing, for the IV is changing also, so a lot of this depends on where the U is going on what it becomes.
Do those member states who want to do more do more, Or is it that every human that we're heading in the same direction?
I think that's going to condition?
And what happens to use relationship with the U K, but also what happens to the to the you and we know that you putting on a conference this year where they're going to be trying Thio sort of set a strategic vision for the you over the next 10 15 20 years.
But I think that that is important.
And actually, that's how it develops and how it changes on what role different member states play and what they want us.
You might condition the way that way.
Thank you both very much indeed.
Thank you.