welcome both again welcome back hello
it's your home georgina we're in the
Institute for government but thank you
for having us here and nice to see you
Sam and we've now got both the documents
do they look miles apart little blue so
they look a notion of heart
do they look yards apart what do you
think of the chances of those two
documents being merged into an agreement
somehow so I think there are obviously
some very clear issues where the UK and
the EU are just on completely different
pages and we know what they are we've
discussed them in the past on this
podcast even better issues to do with
level playing field what obligations
there are when it comes to environment
and labor protections what rules there
are governing our state the UK state aid
regime there's also issues around the
role of the European Court of Justice
and then also whether there should be
multiple agreements or it should all be
packaged as one big agreement but the
thing that I think people should be
aware of is that once you get past all
of those massive issues which is
obviously quite difficult to do when it
comes to the nature of the future UK EU
trading relationship the EU in the UK
are largely on the same page you can
point to a few specific issues where
they they differ slightly but they know
what they want and what it could look
like it's just a case of how do we get
there yeah particularly because I think
on the EU side it's the same process ie
it's the Commission negotiating on
behalf of member states but actually
depending on the kind of agreement it
might need to be signed off by national
and regional Parliament's let alone the
27 EU governments and the European
Parliament which is a new base much more
fractured and so there are many more you
voices there and many more you people to
please and that could be a challenge as
well because it's not just about
negotiating reaching the agreement it's
about passing that agreement as well
what do you think are the biggest
problems here what's what's good work is
there a chance that we do as is
threatened and the front pages of all of
this walk away in June is it just slow
progress by June that could bring us
bring us down I mean that June deadline
doesn't sort of it's not coming out of
nowhere in the political declaration
they did say that there would be a
high-level conference at that point to
take stock of the negotiation
of course I think when that deadline was
mentioned that was at the time when
everyone thought that the UK would be
leaving the EU on the 29th of March 2019
and so you know I think the anyone can
walk away from this negotiation that you
could walk away as well is that a threat
yes but of course we could find
ourselves in a situation where if that
looks really likely all of a sudden
businesses start to react start to panic
citizens as well so it will really be a
question and and calculating what are
the risks and what would that impact be
but at the moment yes I think it does
make sense to say you would walk away
it's part of the leverage and the
negotiation you're less impressed not
part of the theater and in a way I'm
less impressed because I feel that we've
just been through all of this process
before where we go through all of the
sort of theatrics all of the drama all
of the chest-beating and then we know
that when the deadline actually
approaches people go all actually let's
see if we can work something out and
that's what I feel will happen this
timing in a way that's what the EU is
counting on and of course that's a
calculated risk that the UK and Prime
Minister Johnson could actually decide
this time around he means it when he
says he'll walk away and he's happy not
having a deal but my feeling is that yes
we can have a few months of very loud
noise but the EU in the UK shouting past
each other but we were we won't really
know what the compromise is or could be
until later on in the year when the the
looming cliff edge of leaving without a
trade agreement is much closer yeah and
both sides have known for a while I
think that the UK's intention is not to
extend that period of talks beyond the
end of the year that's already a very
short time frame and I think Premier's
perspective their thinking does the UK
really want to shorten that time frame
or if you walked away in June and wasted
the summer and then try to come back
that's absolutely do that if you think
about even last year we think about all
the time we wasted during the article 50
period where we went were we stormed off
to have a general election or we or we
decided to have a leadership election in
one of the two parties or in both you
know you can waste a lot of time and you
can walk away but it doesn't mean even
if we do walk away in June it doesn't
necessarily say to me that there's never
going to be an agreement because we
could
well return to the table in September
when you look at the gap between the two
sides on the idea of the level playing
field can you imagine if the EU didn't
absolutely insist on certainly you
badging of institutions who arbitrate or
the EU laws if we just said we stay
where we are and we don't regress is
that where the bones of an agreement
lies I mean I think very quickly on this
the the EU mandate talks about high
chorus or corresponding high standards
so that's not the same standards
although I think in certain areas like
state aid they will be much more robust
and I think some member states are very
very worried about the UK over time
undercutting the e and that level
playing field no longer being level and
that creating all sorts of problems the
question is can I just ask you just on
that are they more worried about a
Conservative government pumping money
into the economy or a Labour government
just a matter of interest well I I
wonder if it's not sort of because
overtime has made that that term over
time has come into this new mandate
frequently I mean it's there three or
four times I think they are very much
thinking about divergence over time and
if you just decades and absolutely
because you know one government to the
next could change where they want to
invest money what industries they want
to prioritize and where they see
prosperity and of course that then does
impact whatever trading relations it
would have religion and have it use it
usually I think I think yes it's not
just this government but very much any
other future government but I think that
you can see your way through on this and
it will require the UK backing down on
certain things and also the EU backing
down on certain things but if we look at
environment and labor the UK saying well
we're happy to commit to uphold
international obligations that we
already have say our obligation to the
Paris agreement or you know multiple
other multilateral environment
agreements and we're also happy to make
a very commitment not to rollback on
existing levels of protection so as to
get a competitive advantage over you but
we don't want this to be enforceable we
don't want it to be based on EU rules
and the like but and the EU saying we're
we wanted to
have you pools as a point of reference
and we want to avoid divergence over
time and we want to be able to punish
you if you do diverge but can we find a
compromise here I think so because the
UK is going to have to sign up to
enforcement and the possibility of
concessions being withdrawn so so-called
punishment if it does a trade agreement
with the US because the u.s. makes the
same requests here so if there is just a
chance that we can rebrand rebrand this
slightly so obviously the UK needs be
able to say they got something but say
look we're in a situation where on day
one we've got the same rules and if we
diverge
over time to the point where there is an
issue in which the UK or the EU is out
competing the other under because
they've deregulated there's a sliding
scale of punishment then the other party
can put in place tariffs and what it
comes down to is a choice between
accepting tariffs now and saying well we
don't want a free trade agreement or
saying when they will agree this free
trade agreement but we accept that if
there is a problem on this front in the
future then teres might come back into
play it's hard to imagine isn't it
Georgina that there isn't actually a
template for that already in the
backroom of it's already in there monday
is so this is already in this proposal
in terms of enforcement it's already in
the EU negotiating mandate I think lots
of people in the UK when they see here
the Commission saying well we want you
to commit not to roll back from existing
levels of protection you know they then
go in their mind okay but then they'll
try and punish us what would they do the
Commission will be here telling people
what to do know the punishment if the if
the UK does diverge to the point of
market distortion is the Yui you might
put in place and tariffs that's that's
it there might be financial penalties
attached that hasn't been negotiated but
that's it we're not talking about
anything more than that the big problem
I think though where the EU is going to
have to budget on state aid where what
they're asking is much more intrusive
they're saying the UK should apply EU
state aid rules in the UK into the
future indefinitely even if they change
even if they change they should be
enforced by UK based bodies but that
body should work with the Commission to
make sure it's compatible that you use
doing and then if there's a dispute on
issues of EU law which state aid would
be that dispute panel would refer to the
European Court of Justices opinion and
that into account when arbitrating over
the dispute again what we're actually
coming down to is if the UK diverges a
lot that you might put in place tariffs
and I just think the initial block you
can't imagine Georgina accepting that
those sorts of mechanisms can you
Britain I mean at the moment that
doesn't seem very likely but I do think
it's worth emphasizing this the UK has
left the European Union the EU has been
under no illusion that that meant that
the UK wanted to do things differently
the problem with the EU s they don't
know what the UK wants to do differently
and they're trying to plan accordingly
to that and they don't really want to be
in the situation where you're having
punitive action and you're reacting to
diverges you they're trying to be in a
position where you prevent overt and the
reason for that is because divergence
you know disrupts trade flows and any
disruption to trade flows means
potentially more cost for producers and
more costs for consumers it means
disruption of supply chains and all of
that very costly so they're thinking
about it in sort of a much more
long-term way but the problem is what
they're proposing at the moment is never
going to fly here but I suspect that you
know in Brussels behind closed doors
they are exploring different options I
mean I I feel I'll probably write a
piece about it so but I feel I could
design something that if I could
convince the prime minister to accept it
he could sell right there's a huge
amount of ifs in that in that I'm never
going to be in a position to do that but
but if you're applying to be a weirdo in
Dominic Cummings new empire well I did
read super forecasting or listen to it
an order book book book last week so
maybe no I'm absolutely not no interest
whatsoever look forward to reading it so
yes the British government is saying
that it's the EU who have over
interpreted the political declaration
that extra documents signed up to
alongside the withdrawal agreement and
that they've added lots of paragraphs
and extra definitions which means that
there's stretching the definition of
level playing field and what we actually
signed up to match is what we have put
in this new negotiating document who's
right so I really don't have time for
this argument because just because
throughout this entire process the UK in
the EU has said we are happy to
negotiate
we trade agreement with you that looks
like the one we have with Canada however
because you're big and nearby we will
ask more of you in these areas that's
been a constant throughout so to say
this is a surprise or they've moved the
goalposts
that's just can't be true we've always
known this is what the EU means by it
it's absolutely fine that the UK
disagrees with their exact
interpretation of that and how they want
to implement it on the ground but it's
it's not new and the political
declaration who's who's moved furthest
from that there seems to be a Christian
insults flying the political declaration
was always going to be ambitious it was
going to set this idea of what an ideal
future UK new relationship would look
like it's not it was never legally
binding and I think the EU and the UK
actually throughout the negotiations
were saying that that negotiation still
has to happen right if this is you know
this is our ambition but this is not
where you know this is not necessarily
where we will end up again I think as
Sam said earlier that a lot of what's in
these two human days actually was in the
political declaration so it's not
completely new of course it won't be
exactly the political declaration in the
same way that the final agreement won't
be exactly what these mandates have
outlined the question is is what does
that landing zone look like and do we
have enough time to reach both parties
are setting out this all the EU is
taking a hyper maximalist approach on
certain areas of the political
declaration and the UK is chosen to
interpret it slightly differently
because it believes it's in its interest
to interpret it that way and that's fine
this is the beginning of the negotiation
this is what the UK wants this is what
the EU wants it is pretty much they
don't agree on it pretty much the sorts
of levels of documents you'd normally
expect at the beginning of a major trade
negotiation like this you've seen a few
of them both actually used to be the
negotiated mandate so the EU used to be
secret yeah so it used to be that you
only saw them if they leaked but now
they did now the after they've learned
some lessons of their failed negotiation
with the u.s. they have started
publishing them also we've seen them in
the past but usually we got them through
we had to get hold of them through
nefarious means so it's actually quite
nice that it's being published
I mean traditionally what happens is
they will you know both sides will draft
sort of a mandate they'll exchange it
they'll have time to look at it not
clear that that happened whether both
sides just store it once it had been
published online but of course I think
both sides have knowledge that this is
what their starting point you'd expect
them to be miles apart you'd expect them
to be having you know holding very tough
lines but it's where will they end up
and I suspect that on both sides there
are lots of discussions right now about
their red lines where they can't move
how far they're willing to move and what
they would be ready to work I'm gonna
push back slightly because I do want to
emphasize this miles apart on certain
specific issues because again as I said
at the beginning of our discussion if
you actually go through this page by
page and you probably counted the number
of pages where the UK and EU were
roughly in the same place it probably
outnumber it easily outnumber the areas
where there's disagreement so a lot of
what we're looking at here gives me hope
then of course give me hope there'll be
a trade agreement but then of course the
issues where there are a disagreement
aren't small ones um on the structure of
the talks back if you go all the way
back to the original brexit divorce
agreement Britain wanted a certain type
of structure the European Union wanted
another structure it's fair to say isn't
it that we ended up 100% on the European
Union template this time again we've got
a difference in how these should be
structured Britain would like lots of
separate agreements and they would like
an overarching agreement in which
they're all interrelated we worry that
they will that means they'll try and
pressurize us on one to affect another
who's gonna win that or is it already
gaming that away it really depends I
think you know if we didn't have this
sort of cutoff date by the end of the
year and we had you know years and years
of negotiations I think you would be
pushing very very hard about having one
comprehensive agreement because they
don't really like little agreements on
the side so just to clarify so that
incorporates trade as one pillars and
security as another then say transport
is something else and all sort of
packaged
in one in one deal is great deliver
things agree kind of but I think there's
a recognition that if the cutoff date is
the end of the year and in fact fundle
bundle a who's the Commission president
when she was in London earlier this year
said we're not going to be able to do
everything we're going to have to
prioritize and the question is is what
does that basic deal look like and if it
is a basic deal ie
doesn't cover everything does that
necessarily mean that those things that
haven't been covered will be separate
agreements or is it something that with
you know piling on top but at a later
stage so my feeling on this is that
ultimately this however its negotiated
even if it's negotiated as separate
packages so we negotiate trade over here
justice and Home Affairs here security
and defense here in their separate the
EU will ultimately try and package it
underneath one horizontal agreement
where the governance structure sees so
that's where you embed political
dialogues you also have we also have
dispute
you also have mechanisms to allow for
continued negotiation and the reason I
say this is what they're trying to avoid
is the exact issue they have with
Switzerland which is whereby they have
lots of different agreements with
different enforcement mechanisms then it
gets very unwieldy and it creates lots
of problems and right now they're trying
to negotiate with Switzerland an
institutional framework agreement that
sits over all of this so it doesn't seem
to me to be likely that he used going to
immediately try and recreate that system
they hate with the UK but the UK as you
as you said in your question is
obviously quite cautious of having this
overarching structure because they worry
that say we misbehave on trade over here
the UK the EU my threateners on say
access to databases to do with justice
and Home Affairs over here they're
worried about the inter linkages which
is exactly that you doesn't want to do
so it's not an unfounded figure and
actually already does with Switzerland I
mean if you look back a couple of years
ago and cement held a referendum on
trying to limit the number of new
workers I think that kickers Croatia was
looking to join Schengen at the time and
that sort of erupted it was a big debate
and the EU then
down discussions with Switzerland on an
integration in the internal energy
market which was just something
completely separate but they created a
direct link and that was political so
the EU can use disagreements in certain
areas to slow down progress in other
areas such as a way of putting pressure
on the other side to budge and coming
back to the negotiations the UK is
having with the EU now on issues such as
data and financial services where it's
not a negotiation between the UK and the
EU in that both parties and the EU in
particular said well we'll deal with
these issues unilaterally we'll decide
whether to grant your equivalence for
financial services or adequacy for data
by ourselves we won't negotiate it we'll
just decide technically speaking that
should be completely unrelated to the
trade agreement discussions there should
be no overlap because you could decide
that irrespective of what happens with
the free trade agreement technically
speaking politically of course they're
going to be linked if we have a trade
agreement at the end of the year between
the EU and the UK I fully expect that
the UK will also have a data adequacy
ruling in its favour and also there'll
be equivalence for financial services if
we don't have a trade agreement at the
end of the year no technical reason why
we couldn't have the other two but
politically no jobs politically it just
seems quite unlikely we'll be limited
although they're put in place a time
limits and the like to try and keep
pressure yeah absolutely I mean those
unilateral measures will be dependent on
what comes out of the east negotiations
right now and I suspect that the EU
would be more willing for the unilateral
measures to last longer for example and
have less conditionality attached if
they have reached some form an agreement
to cover goods customs tariffs
governance and fish back to the meat of
the issue fish how much do you think
really changes in terms of who's fishing
for what in our waters putting the
rhetoric of the British government
position to one side for now if we look
ahead to the if there is a successful
agreement what do you think Georgie so I
think fish is a really contentious issue
and actually the language that is in
this
and a compared to the draft Monday that
was published at the beginning of the
month is a lot tougher
that's for Europe one your the e yes
sorry yes News member the language on
fish is a lot tougher and that's because
some member states are really worried
and they're thinking well if we are
going to compromise at some point we
should start at a point where it's
absolutely upholding the existing
arrangement we will accept nothing else
potentially knowing that actually it
will be a compromise further down the
line but it is it is something that
France is worried about and and I think
the EU Minister I mean he don't shine
our has been on record saying that this
was an actually deal-breaker and but
there are other member state members did
you like suggest yeah I think this is
something that the EU will want some
clarity on and movement on earlier in
the negotiations absolutely and they
will and and this is something I think
they're probably gonna start talking
about it in a couple of weeks but is
that deadline set in stone I don't know
I think it's not like extending article
15 English engines or extending the
transition period where that deadline is
set in stone has to be made in the
summer we'll see but I but I suspect
that this is the other important thing
it's not just France that cares about
this fisheries agreement there are other
member states as well but they're lining
up quite conveniently behind France and
letting France oversee the services
sector slightly forgotten in various
sectors of their service industry and
they are they pretty much forgotten in
their song they're not forgotten but
they are treated as if we are talking
about the free trade agreement which is
what we are and and then to elaborate on
what I mean by that what you can do on
services in a free trade agreement is
nothing like the status quo so EU
membership on services the single
marketing services very much exists and
it allows you to do things that you
can't do if you don't have a trade
agreement or even if you do have a trade
agreement and that's how its approached
so the future free trade agreement
that's being proposed will cover
services
it just won't offer much more than the
status quo there's some interesting
quirks in the
two different mandates in that the UK
and EU were largely aligned on this in
terms of what they're talking about they
know the format they know what a
free-trade agreement does and what it
doesn't but the EU have said they want
to exclude audio-visual services from
the discussion which they always do in
their trade agreements because of the
French the UK said they want to include
it so that's one area where even on the
trade side there is some time
disagreement and the UK will just have
to budge on that the EU are moving and
the difference between the EU draft
mandate and the one that was finally
adopted they did add a paragraph on
financial services and equivalence
decisions making it very clear that
these would be unilateral measures and
mechanisms so it would be the EU
granting lease in the UK but it does say
that there would need to be consultation
with the UK well and this is it so
though people when they talk about this
trade agreement this and it doesn't
cover services it'll cover services it
will have long pages and pages of
schedules covering services saying what
you can't do what you can't do in a very
narrow way doesn't do much will do next
nothing on the regulatory side which is
where the barriers are but they will for
example be a financial services chapter
most likely what will it do it will
commit both the UK and the EU to create
a dialogue between their regulators so
as to iron out issues in the future
useful but nothing like pass porting or
what exists now the people who are
actually negotiating on our side on
their side yes in people particularly
rude about our calibre and performance
in the Commons today how do the two
sides measure up in terms of experience
acumen I mean I don't work for the
government or for the e what I would say
is that the e are formidable trade
negotiators this is what they do really
well they have a process that reflects
years of fine-tuning and they have
picked the people who had been working
on brexit issues in different
departments they've brought them in they
feel like they have the right people
with the right experience and the right
level of knowledge so not only about
sort of what happens under EU law but
also a good
of common law of WTO law and also the
politics of negotiations I think on the
EU side they will be including many more
people as well so we know that on the
security side they will be involving
their colleagues from the European
external Action Service which is this de
facto you foreign ministry they'll be
leading on that there'll also be close
collaboration with the Department for
trade and we know that the head of the
Department for trade used to be the
deputy chief negotiator during the
article 50 negotiations so there's a lot
of linkages there I think on the UK side
we know we think roughly 40 to 50 people
I think on their task force and one
thing that I was really struck by is
actually I was when I was in Washington
back in April I met someone there who
had recently left the US administration
said oh I I've met some of your trade
negotiators these are not the people who
will be looking at the UK EU negotiation
but but people who who were looking at
the UK US trade negotiation they were
saying they're very good on detail we're
just not sure they have the experience
of negotiating and so they threw a curve
ball we tried to see how they react and
they didn't know how to yet but that was
back in April and you know I think the
civil service is showing that it can be
incredibly agile so but the point up the
point I would make here when it comes to
these negotiations is the people we have
doing it a fine because the issues
aren't about technical things around
well how big should this quota be what
should you know there's some issues on
rules of origin which should have to
deal with but largely bill - the big
disagreements here they're political so
they're on fish do we allow access to
our fishing waters or not and under
which terms if the Prime Minister tells
them where we want I want you to find a
solution on this and this is the broad
range of what I want this is broadly
what I want you to do they can pull
something together we saw it with the
Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland
protocol last year on say court of
justice on Environment and state aid
these are political decisions and so I
have the full confidence that if the
ministerial direction is there and
they're told to find a solution within
certain parameters that they can do so
it's not it's not quite the same as say
negotiating with the US when we really
we're not going to
Oh tariff tariff quota free we're gonna
have to go tariff line by tariff line
and it's a bit different I feel this
negotiation is just driven by the
politics so I think focusing on the
actual civil servants who are tasked
with delivering it is kind of missing
the point yeah and I think the the key
well the key for those civil servants is
what you said is known how far they can
go having a clear understanding of the
priorities the red lines and that place
for fudging and compromise and maybe
being a smaller leaner team without much
reference to Parliament or I mean this
one of these mandates in front of you
came from the Cabinet or one section of
the cabinet or maybe even smaller than
that and the other one went around 27
countries does that give an advantage
maybe you can be lighter on your feet
possibly and you know when you talk in
capitals they say to some degree there's
there's a little bit of relief that
actually the government has a majority
in parliament because at least that
process looks like it will be simpler
this time around but on the EU side it
could be much more complicated and
that's because the Commission and the EU
governments have a process which I said
it's very rigid they have constant
feedback before and ever and after every
negotiating round for contentious issues
they will member states feel the
Commission is taking a too hard-line
position they will push back on that and
likewise if they think the Commission's
being soft they'll push back on that as
well but it's also about the European
Parliament the European Parliament has
to sign this deal of much more fractured
this time around many more MEP s who
want to be seen to be standing up for
their constituencies and then depending
on the kind of agreement whether it
covers areas of law that fall under you
know member state law not just EU law so
that's things like you know transport
for example there are e countries that
legislate in certain areas and then the
EU will legislate as a whole in other
areas if that agreement covers areas of
law that fall under the EU and Member
States then it possibly will need to be
signed off by national and regional
Parliament's now there is a way of
provisionally applying agreement but it
does mean many more
added to the mix so for the EU that
balanced it could be problematic in that
it would make it less agile and you know
less able to respond quickly but also it
could be a point of leverage where it
says look really sorry our position
reflects hours and hours of negotiations
we can't really move much on the UK side
so I think that was a very very good
overview but better but on the UK side
do I think that if the Prime Minister
signs off an agreement with the EU that
he can sell it at home yes he's an atc
pejorative if he says he's happy with it
even if a few people are a bit annoyed
it's fine so and I think that does help
on this front in that from the EU
perspective under Theresa May it was a
nightmare she could say something and it
didn't and it didn't matter a minute but
now you know if you do get the Prime
Minister on board that it will probably
happen we saw that with the withdrawal
agreement last year just finally the US
Trade Representative is suspiciously
over here you can't help thinking that
on the same day that these talks start
on Monday with the European Union
there's going to be a photo-op somewhere
and the talks will simultaneously start
with the United States will that have
any impact some brexit ears particularly
were hoping that it might just put some
pressure on the EU will it have any in
so my I've had to revise my opinion
slightly on UK us in that I'd assumed
that following the UK leaving the
European Union that we'd make a big song
and dance about the US about it being a
number-one priority and for the reasons
you've said there some breaks just think
it gives us leverage over the EU which
is debatable but at least you know an
argument you can engage with and then
also because for many of them it's what
they wanted to do all along but then if
you actually look at what the
government's doing yes of course the
thought you think when you look at
Huawei if you strip out all of the talk
about national security and the like the
government's prioritized rolling out 5g
quickly in the UK over the median
immediate relationship with the United
States Boris Johnson's postponed his
trip to Washington the US negotiating
mandate the negotiating mandate for the
UK's agreement with the
or objectives is meant to be published
last next week but that was by all
accounts could have probably been
published before the general election
it's been sitting there for a while so I
actually think the UK is being much more
cautious with regards to the US than I
expected and that doesn't mean I don't
think there'll be a photo I shot with
light Iser when he's over here and that
won't be put in contrast with the EU in
saying that we negotiating with both but
bit more measured than I was expecting
and I think there's recognition that
this is also going to be a tough
negotiation right the US and the UK
probably want different things though
there'll be some things they agree on
but there'll be lots of other things
that they don't agree on it won't be a
straightforward negotiation you can you
can reach some point like commercial
agreement for example but if you're
looking at a full fully fledged
free-trade agreement that's an entirely
different ballgame and also I think the
politics you mentioned some of the
decisions that the UK government has
taken recently which were or - perhaps
with with the positions and by the US
administration but also the u.s. is
about to enter a presidential election
is this really the time and if you are
looking at a fully fledged free trade
agreement that would need to pass
through Congress is it likely that
Congress would pass it in the midst of a
presidential election they're not giving
Donald Trump another trade agreement
maybe they gave him one recently because
he renegotiated NAFTA and Congress
signed them off they're not going to
give him a fully fledged free trade
agreement with the UK this year well I
think we could see though is some of
those usually a reference some sort of
smaller agreement so something for Trump
to say look I did something with the UK
something for I mean that you can
envision the BBC or channel four
headline now UK in us do Trade Agreement
it doesn't really matter if it's just a
piece of paper saying well we'd like to
do this in future that's how it'll play
out and that's how it'd be received by
the public so I can see that happening
this year but a fully fledged free trade
agreement a is gonna be fair would be
very difficult to do this year even if
we really really wanted it and I'm
actually looking at the British
government and saying it doesn't seem to
be your number one priority you both
watch trade have watched it for years
now it having been an EU competence your
home team is playing you excited but
it's quite fun if it is a professional
perspective it gives it means that we're
both very very busy so that's
interesting I think it's gonna be quite
exciting to see what the UK's approach
to trade more generally looks like over
the coming years we sort of rewrite
trades strategy from scratch and my hope
is that we do that in a sensible way in
a considered way and we don't just run
headfirst into whatever is we're into
agreeing with the US or whoever else
without properly thinking about it and
some of the action from government
recently is actually reassured me on
that point I also think that trade has
been a it's been a bubble for way too
long and she's quite a good thing that
people are taking an interest in it the
problem is is that it's very complicated
negotiations don't always end up where
we think they will be and actually
there's a lot of technical detail in
there so it's great for us because it's
the politics meets the technical and and
and then just following a negotiation
really closely the the question is how
do you communicate that in a simple way
that does not cut corners but I think
overall it's probably a very good thing
although although I'd add one caveat
there which is which is sort of the
guilty secret of people who work on
trade is that normal trade agreements
aren't actually that important for the
economy so if we're talking about
something really comprehensive and
ingrained like the EU obviously and
we've been in for 40 years obviously
leaving it has a cost and obviously if
you do a trade agreement with the u.s.
it will have some benefits but actually
it's quite small if you're talking
numbers sort of EU UK u.s. agreement is
estimated to improve GDP relative to
some future counterfactual about that
naught point three nought point four
percent it's not very big you know so
when when I look at the government and
see how you're prioritizing the rollout
of 5g over that I certainly the way kind
of makes sense but of course of course
we don't like to talk about this to dad
because otherwise no-one would invite us
to speak to you you wouldn't invite us
to speak to you on your podcast and it's
not just about trade there is many
there's security foreign policy
cooperation and what the UK decides to
do domestically which is different as
well so I think yeah it's an exciting
year thank you both for helping us
through it and I'm sure we'll have you
back if you'll come and thank you so
much for meeting us thank you
you